On 15.03.23 08:08, Roland Perry 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".

The engineers were split off Railtrack and divided amongst multiple
maintenance/renewals companies. From Railtrack's perspective, the
engineers weren't "split", they were entirely divested. They retained
just the bare minimum to keep the railway going in the short term, but
as Hatfield demonstrated, they lacked even the basic level of internal
competence to do that.

The problem with things like signalling is the engineers who had been
part of BR and who got split off and divested from Railtrack all ended
up (those who remained in the industry) working for the suppliers. They
expected to be able to buy in signalling expertise, but all the
expertise that existed, that they were depending on being able to buy
in, was working for the suppliers, ie the companies trying to sell them
on this vapourware ERTMS level 3 technology. If they picked up the
phone, the only people they could potentially call were the salesmen. Of
course the salesmen weren't going to give an honest critique of the
products being offered.

Robin

Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
> On 15.03.23 08:08, Roland Perry 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".
>
> The engineers were split off Railtrack and divided amongst multiple
> maintenance/renewals companies. From Railtrack's perspective, the
> engineers weren't "split", they were entirely divested. They retained
> just the bare minimum to keep the railway going in the short term, but
> as Hatfield demonstrated, they lacked even the basic level of internal
> competence to do that.
>
> The problem with things like signalling is the engineers who had been
> part of BR and who got split off and divested from Railtrack all ended
> up (those who remained in the industry) working for the suppliers. They
> expected to be able to buy in signalling expertise, but all the
> expertise that existed, that they were depending on being able to buy
> in, was working for the suppliers, ie the companies trying to sell them
> on this vapourware ERTMS level 3 technology. If they picked up the
> phone, the only people they could potentially call were the salesmen. Of
> course the salesmen weren't going to give an honest critique of the
> products being offered.
>

Yes, good point.

On 15/03/2023 08:23, Recliner wrote:
> 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.
>

Something similar happened with train crews. Some TOCs thought "there is
no way we are going to need as many drivers as BR did" - encouraged a
lot to take early retirement - and then found out they were wrong.

And so started a game of effectively "bribing" drivers to move from
another TOC (or freight company), which may be one reason why some
drivers now take home at least £60,000 p.a.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 15.03.23 08:08, Roland Perry 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".
>>
>> The engineers were split off Railtrack and divided amongst multiple
>> maintenance/renewals companies. From Railtrack's perspective, the
>> engineers weren't "split", they were entirely divested. They retained
>> just the bare minimum to keep the railway going in the short term, but
>> as Hatfield demonstrated, they lacked even the basic level of internal
>> competence to do that.
>>
>> The problem with things like signalling is the engineers who had been
>> part of BR and who got split off and divested from Railtrack all ended
>> up (those who remained in the industry) working for the suppliers. They
>> expected to be able to buy in signalling expertise, but all the
>> expertise that existed, that they were depending on being able to buy
>> in, was working for the suppliers, ie the companies trying to sell them
>> on this vapourware ERTMS level 3 technology. If they picked up the
>> phone, the only people they could potentially call were the salesmen. Of
>> course the salesmen weren't going to give an honest critique of the
>> products being offered.
>>
>
> Yes, good point.
>
>
>
>

You need engineering competence to be an informed customer. See also
defence procurement.

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:
>>> 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?

As they all worked for other companies, they weren't it a position to answer
questions unless accompanied by purchase orders, for which it is unlikely
there was a budget, unless preceded by requests for tenders, etc.

Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
> Something similar happened with train crews. Some TOCs thought "there is
> no way we are going to need as many drivers as BR did" - encouraged a
> lot to take early retirement - and then found out they were wrong.

Somewhere I have the ticket I got on the day that SWT made all travel free,
to apologise for their driver hiring screwup...

(supposedly somebody managed to get a free ticket to Inverness - mine was
only to Waterloo)

> And so started a game of effectively "bribing" drivers to move from
> another TOC (or freight company), which may be one reason why some
> drivers now take home at least £60,000 p.a.

Having separate pay negotiations for each TOC no doubt didn't help.

Theo

Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
> 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:
>>>> 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?
>
> As they all worked for other companies, they weren't it a position to answer
> questions unless accompanied by purchase orders, for which it is unlikely
> there was a budget, unless preceded by requests for tenders, etc.

No presales and marketing functions in the divested companies? (Of course
that would be one of the things that could make the whole process more
expensive than having a single body.)

Sam

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

On 15.03.23 23:09, Sam Wilson wrote:
> Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
>> 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:
>>>>> 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?
>>
>> As they all worked for other companies, they weren't it a position to answer
>> questions unless accompanied by purchase orders, for which it is unlikely
>> there was a budget, unless preceded by requests for tenders, etc.
>
> No presales and marketing functions in the divested companies? (Of course
> that would be one of the things that could make the whole process more
> expensive than having a single body.)

The point was the divested companies became the suppliers to Railtrack.
The expertise Railtrack needed to manage the process of dealing with
outsourced suppliers is the expertise they had oursourced.

Robin

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>> On 15.03.23 08:08, Roland Perry 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".
>>>
>>> The engineers were split off Railtrack and divided amongst multiple
>>> maintenance/renewals companies. From Railtrack's perspective, the
>>> engineers weren't "split", they were entirely divested. They retained
>>> just the bare minimum to keep the railway going in the short term, but
>>> as Hatfield demonstrated, they lacked even the basic level of internal
>>> competence to do that.
>>>
>>> The problem with things like signalling is the engineers who had been
>>> part of BR and who got split off and divested from Railtrack all ended
>>> up (those who remained in the industry) working for the suppliers. They
>>> expected to be able to buy in signalling expertise, but all the
>>> expertise that existed, that they were depending on being able to buy
>>> in, was working for the suppliers, ie the companies trying to sell them
>>> on this vapourware ERTMS level 3 technology. If they picked up the
>>> phone, the only people they could potentially call were the salesmen. Of
>>> course the salesmen weren't going to give an honest critique of the
>>> products being offered.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, good point.
>
> You need engineering competence to be an informed customer. See also
> defence procurement.

Yup. That's something the arts graduates in the government don't
understand.

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Something similar happened with train crews. Some TOCs thought "there is
>> no way we are going to need as many drivers as BR did" - encouraged a
>> lot to take early retirement - and then found out they were wrong.
>
> Somewhere I have the ticket I got on the day that SWT made all travel free,
> to apologise for their driver hiring screwup...
>
> (supposedly somebody managed to get a free ticket to Inverness - mine was
> only to Waterloo)
>
>> And so started a game of effectively "bribing" drivers to move from
>> another TOC (or freight company), which may be one reason why some
>> drivers now take home at least £60,000 p.a.
>
> Having separate pay negotiations for each TOC no doubt didn't help.

Some of the TOCs thought it would be cheaper (particularly near the end of
a franchise) to cut back on the recruitment and training of new drivers.
Instead, they just poached experienced drivers from other TOCs. That
short-term, selfish measure did temporarily boost the profits of the TOC
owners, but was bad for the industry as a whole.

In message <h8k9ej-f8r.ln1@castle.rilynn.me.uk>, at 19:52:17 on Wed, 15
Mar 2023, Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> 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:
>>>> 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?
>
>As they all worked for other companies, they weren't it a position to answer
>questions unless accompanied by purchase orders, for which it is unlikely
>there was a budget, unless preceded by requests for tenders, etc.

Based on the examples quoted earlier, the customers[1] and (prospective)
suppliers for various projects should be engaged on feasibility studies
where both sides are around the table. (Whether that's a lump of wood,
or some remote working).

That's how it works (and quite well, too, most of the time) in other
industries. If didn't work for the rail industry it's not structural, as
has been claimed, but a failure to apply commonplace working practices
across many stakeholders.

Also, in many industries, engineers working for different organisations
have other ways to share/swap expertise than simply applying red ink to
Requests for Tender.

If people were working in all-but-impenetrable silos post-privatisation,
isn't it possible they'd simply carried on a mentality from
pre-privatisation? In which case the act of privatisation isn't the
villain here.

[1] Could be Railtrack/Network Rail, or a contractor looking for
subcontractors.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <h8k9ej-f8r.ln1@castle.rilynn.me.uk>, at 19:52:17 on Wed, 15
> Mar 2023, Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> 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:
>>>>> 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?
>>
>> As they all worked for other companies, they weren't it a position to answer
>> questions unless accompanied by purchase orders, for which it is unlikely
>> there was a budget, unless preceded by requests for tenders, etc.
>
> Based on the examples quoted earlier, the customers[1] and (prospective)
> suppliers for various projects should be engaged on feasibility studies
> where both sides are around the table. (Whether that's a lump of wood,
> or some remote working).
>
> That's how it works (and quite well, too, most of the time) in other
> industries. If didn't work for the rail industry it's not structural, as
> has been claimed, but a failure to apply commonplace working practices
> across many stakeholders.
>
> Also, in many industries, engineers working for different organisations
> have other ways to share/swap expertise than simply applying red ink to
> Requests for Tender.
>
> If people were working in all-but-impenetrable silos post-privatisation,
> isn't it possible they'd simply carried on a mentality from
> pre-privatisation? In which case the act of privatisation isn't the
> villain here.
>
> [1] Could be Railtrack/Network Rail, or a contractor looking for
> subcontractors.

Every successful organisation that needs engineering excellence that I know
about, be it the space industry or the oil industry, retains highly skilled
engineers in the upper part of the chain that issues the contracts.
Otherwise you don’t even know what you don’t know.

On 16/03/2023 06:42, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <h8k9ej-f8r.ln1@castle.rilynn.me.uk>, at 19:52:17 on Wed, 15
> Mar 2023, Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> 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:
>>>>> 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?
>>
>> As they all worked for other companies, they weren't it a position to
>> answer
>> questions unless accompanied by purchase orders, for which it is unlikely
>> there was a budget, unless preceded by requests for tenders, etc.
>
> Based on the examples quoted earlier, the customers[1] and (prospective)
> suppliers for various projects should be engaged on feasibility studies
> where both sides are around the table. (Whether that's a lump of wood,
> or some remote working).
>
> That's how it works (and quite well, too, most of the time) in other
> industries. If didn't work for the rail industry it's not structural, as
> has been claimed, but a failure to apply commonplace working practices
> across many stakeholders.
>
> Also, in many industries, engineers working for different organisations
> have other ways to share/swap expertise than simply applying red ink to
> Requests for Tender.
>
> If people were working in all-but-impenetrable silos post-privatisation,
> isn't it possible they'd simply carried on a mentality from
> pre-privatisation? In which case the act of privatisation isn't the
> villain here.

The post-privatisation companies were run by accountants as well. If
Railtrack wanted advice they paid for it. The most able engineers
became consultants. "It'll cost you lots of money for a report" that
you probably wont fully understand because it's too technical and you
have no engineer who will understand it.

Worst of all Railtrack didn't have engineers to supervise and inspect
the work being undertaken on their behalf so it was contracted out.
Network Rail still doesn't. Read the RAIB report on the Stonehouse
derailment.

>
> [1] Could be Railtrack/Network Rail, or a contractor looking for
> subcontractors.

The same happens in government:-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/03/boris-johnson-science-covid-maths-whatapps-advisers

In message <tut3dc$10fm9$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:39:42 on Wed, 15 Mar
2023, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>On 15/03/2023 08:23, Recliner wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tuq99r$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
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> 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.

Oh dear.

>Something similar happened with train crews. Some TOCs thought "there
>is no way we are going to need as many drivers as BR did" - encouraged
>a lot to take early retirement - and then found out they were wrong.

Something similar happened when Abellio took on the Anglian franchise,
and discarded some old stock because they thought it wasn't needed. Then
into difficulties because they didn't have sufficient spare units to
cover trains in the workshop.

>And so started a game of effectively "bribing" drivers to move from
>another TOC (or freight company), which may be one reason why some
>drivers now take home at least £60,000 p.a.

The law of supply and demand. Although nowadays supply doesn't seem to
be a problem, with job adverts being taken down after a couple of days
after being swamped by thousands of potential recruits. [Albeit needing
training in many cases]
--
Roland Perry

In message <turva5$q35j$6@dont-email.me>, at 08:23:33 on Wed, 15 Mar
2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tuqbct$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
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> signalling. Railtrack had committed to a full upgrade to moving
>>>>>>> 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.

There are ways to know about the railways without paying for a
subscription to "Liar", you know. Where it matters, I always try
to be at least one rung higher up the food chain.

But seeing as you bring up the concept, I pay nothing to read your
contributions here; am I to conclude that's what they are worth?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <turva5$q35j$6@dont-email.me>, at 08:23:33 on Wed, 15 Mar
> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tuqbct$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
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> signalling. Railtrack had committed to a full upgrade to moving
>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> There are ways to know about the railways without paying for a
> subscription to "Liar", you know.

Says the man who knows nothing of the contents of that or other magazines.

> Where it matters, I always try
> to be at least one rung higher up the food chain.

You bask in ignorance. It's so much easier than actually knowing things.

>
> But seeing as you bring up the concept, I pay nothing to read your
> contributions here; am I to conclude that's what they are worth?

You argue with all of the facts I cite, so you obviously regard them as
worthless. Maybe you'd value them properly if you had to pay to read them?
Not, of course, that could could afford to.

In message <tus058$q7c8$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:37:55 on Wed, 15 Mar
2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:

>The problem with things like signalling is the engineers who had been
>part of BR and who got split off and divested from Railtrack all ended
>up (those who remained in the industry) working for the suppliers. They
>expected to be able to buy in signalling expertise, but all the
>expertise that existed, that they were depending on being able to buy
>in, was working for the suppliers, ie the companies trying to sell them
>on this vapourware ERTMS level 3 technology. If they picked up the
>phone, the only people they could potentially call were the salesmen.
>Of course the salesmen weren't going to give an honest critique of the
>products being offered.

In a well-run organisation there are sales-support engineers who try to
reduce that reputational damage by tempering the salesmens' more
undeliverable promises.

A friend was recently interviewed for a job (he turned it down because
too much traveling was required - even in an age of Zoom) doing
precisely that for large car-charging installations. The people buying
such installations (which could be councils, offices, leisure complexes
and so on) seem to be able to cope without having car-charger engineers
on their own payroll.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 10:15:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <tut3dc$10fm9$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:39:42 on Wed, 15 Mar
>2023, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>>On 15/03/2023 08:23, Recliner wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tuq99r$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
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
>Oh dear.
>
>>Something similar happened with train crews. Some TOCs thought "there
>>is no way we are going to need as many drivers as BR did" - encouraged
>>a lot to take early retirement - and then found out they were wrong.
>
>Something similar happened when Abellio took on the Anglian franchise,
>and discarded some old stock because they thought it wasn't needed. Then
>into difficulties because they didn't have sufficient spare units to
>cover trains in the workshop.
>
>>And so started a game of effectively "bribing" drivers to move from
>>another TOC (or freight company), which may be one reason why some
>>drivers now take home at least £60,000 p.a.
>
>The law of supply and demand. Although nowadays supply doesn't seem to
>be a problem, with job adverts being taken down after a couple of days
>after being swamped by thousands of potential recruits. [Albeit needing
>training in many cases]

Driver training is the bottleneck (and was a much worse problem during the social distancing period).

In message <tuufbv$1aipb$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:09:51 on Thu, 16 Mar
2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <h8k9ej-f8r.ln1@castle.rilynn.me.uk>, at 19:52:17 on Wed, 15
>> Mar 2023, Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> 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:
>>>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> As they all worked for other companies, they weren't it a position to answer
>>> questions unless accompanied by purchase orders, for which it is unlikely
>>> there was a budget, unless preceded by requests for tenders, etc.
>>
>> Based on the examples quoted earlier, the customers[1] and (prospective)
>> suppliers for various projects should be engaged on feasibility studies
>> where both sides are around the table. (Whether that's a lump of wood,
>> or some remote working).
>>
>> That's how it works (and quite well, too, most of the time) in other
>> industries. If didn't work for the rail industry it's not structural, as
>> has been claimed, but a failure to apply commonplace working practices
>> across many stakeholders.
>>
>> Also, in many industries, engineers working for different organisations
>> have other ways to share/swap expertise than simply applying red ink to
>> Requests for Tender.
>>
>> If people were working in all-but-impenetrable silos post-privatisation,
>> isn't it possible they'd simply carried on a mentality from
>> pre-privatisation? In which case the act of privatisation isn't the
>> villain here.
>>
>> [1] Could be Railtrack/Network Rail, or a contractor looking for
>> subcontractors.
>
>Every successful organisation that needs engineering excellence that I know
>about, be it the space industry or the oil industry, retains highly skilled
>engineers in the upper part of the chain that issues the contracts.
>Otherwise you don’t even know what you don’t know.

Does that include privatised organisations as well? If so, the fault
with Railtrack hardly lies with John Major.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tuuluv$1bii8$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:02:23 on Thu, 16 Mar
2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:

>Worst of all Railtrack didn't have engineers to supervise and inspect
>the work being undertaken on their behalf so it was contracted out.
>Network Rail still doesn't. Read the RAIB report on the Stonehouse
>derailment.

I have read it, and it does look pretty grim. On the other hand, when
I had some work done on my house the Building Regs inspection was
contracted out (not my choice). Maybe the DfT needs to have something
like Local Authority building inspectors available to look at works on
the railway.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tuufbv$1aipb$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:09:51 on Thu, 16 Mar
> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <h8k9ej-f8r.ln1@castle.rilynn.me.uk>, at 19:52:17 on Wed, 15
>>> Mar 2023, Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> 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:
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>> As they all worked for other companies, they weren't it a position to answer
>>>> questions unless accompanied by purchase orders, for which it is unlikely
>>>> there was a budget, unless preceded by requests for tenders, etc.
>>>
>>> Based on the examples quoted earlier, the customers[1] and (prospective)
>>> suppliers for various projects should be engaged on feasibility studies
>>> where both sides are around the table. (Whether that's a lump of wood,
>>> or some remote working).
>>>
>>> That's how it works (and quite well, too, most of the time) in other
>>> industries. If didn't work for the rail industry it's not structural, as
>>> has been claimed, but a failure to apply commonplace working practices
>>> across many stakeholders.
>>>
>>> Also, in many industries, engineers working for different organisations
>>> have other ways to share/swap expertise than simply applying red ink to
>>> Requests for Tender.
>>>
>>> If people were working in all-but-impenetrable silos post-privatisation,
>>> isn't it possible they'd simply carried on a mentality from
>>> pre-privatisation? In which case the act of privatisation isn't the
>>> villain here.
>>>
>>> [1] Could be Railtrack/Network Rail, or a contractor looking for
>>> subcontractors.
>>
>> Every successful organisation that needs engineering excellence that I know
>> about, be it the space industry or the oil industry, retains highly skilled
>> engineers in the upper part of the chain that issues the contracts.
>> Otherwise you don’t even know what you don’t know.
>
> Does that include privatised organisations as well? If so, the fault
> with Railtrack hardly lies with John Major.

I don’t understand the point you are trying to make.

Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 16/03/2023 06:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <h8k9ej-f8r.ln1@castle.rilynn.me.uk>, at 19:52:17 on Wed, 15
>> Mar 2023, Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> 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:
>>>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> As they all worked for other companies, they weren't it a position to
>>> answer
>>> questions unless accompanied by purchase orders, for which it is unlikely
>>> there was a budget, unless preceded by requests for tenders, etc.
>>
>> Based on the examples quoted earlier, the customers[1] and (prospective)
>> suppliers for various projects should be engaged on feasibility studies
>> where both sides are around the table. (Whether that's a lump of wood,
>> or some remote working).
>>
>> That's how it works (and quite well, too, most of the time) in other
>> industries. If didn't work for the rail industry it's not structural, as
>> has been claimed, but a failure to apply commonplace working practices
>> across many stakeholders.
>>
>> Also, in many industries, engineers working for different organisations
>> have other ways to share/swap expertise than simply applying red ink to
>> Requests for Tender.
>>
>> If people were working in all-but-impenetrable silos post-privatisation,
>> isn't it possible they'd simply carried on a mentality from
>> pre-privatisation? In which case the act of privatisation isn't the
>> villain here.
>
> The post-privatisation companies were run by accountants as well. If
> Railtrack wanted advice they paid for it. The most able engineers
> became consultants. "It'll cost you lots of money for a report" that
> you probably wont fully understand because it's too technical and you
> have no engineer who will understand it.
>
> Worst of all Railtrack didn't have engineers to supervise and inspect
> the work being undertaken on their behalf so it was contracted out.
> Network Rail still doesn't. Read the RAIB report on the Stonehouse
> derailment.

Stonehaven?

Sam

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

Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
> On 15.03.23 23:09, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
>>> 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:
>>>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> As they all worked for other companies, they weren't it a position to answer
>>> questions unless accompanied by purchase orders, for which it is unlikely
>>> there was a budget, unless preceded by requests for tenders, etc.
>>
>> No presales and marketing functions in the divested companies? (Of course
>> that would be one of the things that could make the whole process more
>> expensive than having a single body.)
>
> The point was the divested companies became the suppliers to Railtrack.
> The expertise Railtrack needed to manage the process of dealing with
> outsourced suppliers is the expertise they had oursourced.

But that, plausible though it sounds, is not the same explanation that
Roger gave - that the spinoffs were not able to answer questions without
charging for it.

Sam

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

In message <1l661i92700om78qsn35jn95t76475tgr6@4ax.com>, at 13:34:15 on
Thu, 16 Mar 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>Something similar happened with train crews. Some TOCs thought "there
>>>is no way we are going to need as many drivers as BR did" - encouraged
>>>a lot to take early retirement - and then found out they were wrong.
>>
>>Something similar happened when Abellio took on the Anglian franchise,
>>and discarded some old stock because they thought it wasn't needed. Then
>>into difficulties because they didn't have sufficient spare units to
>>cover trains in the workshop.
>>
>>>And so started a game of effectively "bribing" drivers to move from
>>>another TOC (or freight company), which may be one reason why some
>>>drivers now take home at least £60,000 p.a.
>>
>>The law of supply and demand. Although nowadays supply doesn't seem to
>>be a problem, with job adverts being taken down after a couple of days
>>after being swamped by thousands of potential recruits. [Albeit needing
>>training in many cases]
>
>Driver training is the bottleneck (and was a much worse problem during the
>social distancing period).

They've had a really long time to ramp up their training programmes
since that issue on SWT in the mid-90's.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tuuvfu$1d72n$5@dont-email.me>, at 11:45:02 on Thu, 16 Mar
2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <turva5$q35j$6@dont-email.me>, at 08:23:33 on Wed, 15 Mar
>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tuqbct$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
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> signalling. Railtrack had committed to a full upgrade to moving
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> There are ways to know about the railways without paying for a
>> subscription to "Liar", you know.
>
>Says the man who knows nothing of the contents of that or other magazines.

Oh dear (again). You have no idea what I know about the content such
magazines.

>> Where it matters, I always try
>> to be at least one rung higher up the food chain.
>
>You bask in ignorance. It's so much easier than actually knowing things.

Whereas you bask in the ignorance of what others know. Time to give up
this hopelessly lame line of debate.

>> But seeing as you bring up the concept, I pay nothing to read your
>> contributions here; am I to conclude that's what they are worth?
>
>You argue with all of the facts I cite, so you obviously regard them as
>worthless.

Not all of them. More so the opinions you express, having failed to
comprehend the subject sufficiently. I don't expect that degree of
perfection, but from time to time it might be nice to see you admit you
got the wrong end of the stick.

>Maybe you'd value them properly if you had to pay to read them?

Again, that completely bogus proposition that the more you pay for
something the better it is. I have this bridge for sale.

>Not, of course, that could could afford to.

Don't be ridiculous. I could afford to, but recognise that better
information is available elsewhere as well. My scare resource is time,
not the money to pay others to do half-baked journalism on my behalf.
--
Roland Perry