On 19/03/2023 13:39, Recliner wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 07:25:28 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <kjgb1ipppv6b3p36vuep1u5l3se81bs5r1@4ax.com>, at 13:56:09 on
>> Sat, 18 Mar 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Yes, of course I know how much you know about them. It's a big, fat, zero.
>>
>> Having a bad day are you?
>>
>>>> My scare resource is time,
>>>> not the money to pay others to do half-baked journalism on my behalf.
>>>
>>> Now you're being utterly absurd! Anyone who can waste as much time as
>>> you do in endless, Really Pointless arguments clearly has nothing
>>> useful to do with their time.
>>
>> Perhaps if you started fewer such arguments, we could all get on with
>> matters in hand.
>
> Isn't it strange how every single argument in the group involves you?

And you.

On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 13:58:44 +0000, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:

>On 19/03/2023 13:39, Recliner wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 07:25:28 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <kjgb1ipppv6b3p36vuep1u5l3se81bs5r1@4ax.com>, at 13:56:09 on
>>> Sat, 18 Mar 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, of course I know how much you know about them. It's a big, fat, zero.
>>>
>>> Having a bad day are you?
>>>
>>>>> My scare resource is time,
>>>>> not the money to pay others to do half-baked journalism on my behalf.
>>>>
>>>> Now you're being utterly absurd! Anyone who can waste as much time as
>>>> you do in endless, Really Pointless arguments clearly has nothing
>>>> useful to do with their time.
>>>
>>> Perhaps if you started fewer such arguments, we could all get on with
>>> matters in hand.
>>
>> Isn't it strange how every single argument in the group involves you?
>
>And you.

Actually, no.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tv6s7o$3009l$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:38:32 on Sun, 19 Mar
> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tv45e9$2f4dh$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:57:14 on Sat, 18 Mar
>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>> For some organisations there may
>>>>>> never be a viable private structure (see water).
>>>>>
>>>>> If I can get electrons which are apparently exclusively from renewable
>>>>> sources hundreds of miles away, why can't I buy water from the Thames
>>>>> rather than the Great Ouse? That's not such a daft idea as it sounds
>>>>> although the Greenwash energy *is* pretty daft (although firms like
>>>>> Eurostar seem to think it boosts their reputation) because water is
>>>>> piped/pumped from Norfolk to Essex via the Ouse/Stour scheme.
>>>>
>>>> I don’t know about the connectivity in your area, but in general
>>>> the reason you can’t just get water from any random supplier is
>>>> because there’s no national water grid.
>>>
>>> Not a national one, but there are local grids. See people in Colchester
>>> drinking water which once flowed past my window and through Norfolk
>>> almost up to The Wash, before being re-routed via Suffolk and down to
>>> Essex.
>>>
>>>> The national electrical grid acts as a reservoir into which electrons
>>>> are pumped (and then pumped out again because it’s AC)
>>>
>>> The only pumping going on is at locations like Dinorwig (and that's
>>> water again!). The wires don't bulge with extra electrons when the wind
>>> blows hard, to be consumed later when the sun sets. Although that *is*
>>> how the gas grid works.
>>
>> An analogy, dear boy! Of course there is very little storage in the
>> national electricity grid
>
> It was the word "reservoir", that I was doubtful about.

OK.

>> but AIUI there are voltage and phase changes as
>> demand and supply are matched to each other, and they do have to match.
>>
>>>> and so long as the accounting matches up the suppliers and customers
>>>> then it All Just Works.
>>>
>>> The CoOp once boasted that all its shops were supplied by wind power (a
>>> typical bit of greenwash). I don't see the lights going out on very calm
>>> days.
>>
>> Perhaps claiming 100% wind is exaggeration, but 100% renewables is
>> possible.
>
> It is now, but back then (unless you call Nuclear a renewable, but I'm
> sure the CoOp wouldn't have opened that can of worms) there'd be the
> night-times with no wind to cope with.

There would also be day-times with no wind, and I don’t suppose the power
demand of a CoOp store varies hugely between day and night.

I’m sure nuclear isn’t renewable, but 40+ years ago it wasn’t clear whether
building a nuclear power station was a net consumer or supplier of energy,
despite its clear utility. I’ve been unable to find anything more recent
to cover that question. Since then there have been increases in power
factor and efficiency, but it’s also got a lot more expensive to build
them, expense being a loose proxy for energy use.

> Wind was quite trendy, even woke, and the school I was a governor at had
> significant pressure to install a small/medium-sized wind turbine, and I
> looked at the sums. My conclusion (which people didn't want to hear) was
> that it would be fine to spend £20k, or whatever, on what would
> undoubtedly be a useful teaching aid, but if they expected the long term
> energy contribution to be more than a couple light bulbs, they'd been
> mis-sold.

Yes. We’ve been looking at moving house recently and the Energy
Performance Certificate recommendations are interesting. Most forms of
insulation seem to have a payback period in the 10s of years, which seems
pretty marginal, especially using cost as a proxy for energy use.

Sam

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

On 19/03/2023 07:34, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <tv45e9$2f4dh$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:57:14 on Sat, 18 Mar
> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>>> For some organisations there may
>>>> never be a viable private structure (see water).
>>>
>>> If I can get electrons which are apparently exclusively from renewable
>>> sources hundreds of miles away, why can't I buy water from the Thames
>>> rather than the Great Ouse? That's not such a daft idea as it sounds
>>> although the Greenwash energy *is* pretty daft (although firms like
>>> Eurostar seem to think it boosts their reputation) because water is
>>> piped/pumped from Norfolk to Essex via the Ouse/Stour scheme.
>>
>> I don’t know about the connectivity in your area, but in general the
>> reason
>> you can’t just get water from any random supplier is because there’s no
>> national water grid.
>
> Not a national one, but there are local grids. See people in Colchester
> drinking water which once flowed past my window and through Norfolk
> almost up to The Wash, before being re-routed via Suffolk and down to
> Essex.
>
>> The national electrical grid acts as a reservoir into which electrons
>> are pumped (and then pumped out again because it’s AC)
>
> The only pumping going on is at locations like Dinorwig (and that's
> water again!). The wires don't bulge with extra electrons when the wind
> blows hard, to be consumed later when the sun sets. Although that *is*
> how the gas grid works.
>
>> and so long as the accounting matches up the suppliers and customers
>> then it All Just Works.
>
> The CoOp once boasted that all its shops were supplied by wind power (a
> typical bit of greenwash). I don't see the lights going out on very calm
> days.

They could use batteries or water previously pumped up a hill, but not
on a scale sufficient to supply all the "green" customers at once.
Perhaps their argument is that there's enough to supply *one* customer,
implying that their custom makes the difference between using and not
using it. However, as most renewable supplies cost a fortune to build
and peanuts to run, they're not what we'd turn off if demand reduced.

On 19.03.23 12:37, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <tv6oho$2uvl8$2@dont-email.me>, at 11:35:33 on Sun, 19 Mar
> 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>> On 19.03.23 09:17, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <tv4481$2ep86$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:36:47 on Sat, 18 Mar
>>> 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>> On 17.03.23 08:19, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <tuvlos$1h3m1$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:05:16 on Thu, 16
>>>>> Mar  2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>>>  That there's nothing fundamentally wrong with privatisation
>>>>> (that's  just  the RMT's mantra amongst other left-wing pressure
>>>>> groups), but  the  manner in which it's done can be as poorly
>>>>> executed as in  structures  which have never swapped from public to
>>>>
>>>> What was wrong was the beleif that creating dvisions between
>>>> different  functions of running the railway would create a market
>>>> for those  services that would bring down costs. What it did was
>>>> create artificial divisions within the overall organisation
>>>> delivering the servce that created infefficiencies, and the
>>>> competition that did arise was not able to create savings sufficient
>>>> to offset those increased costs.
>>>  Creating those internal divisions (often characterised as "profit
>>> centres") is just as prevalent in the always-been-private sector. So
>>> I don't think this is unique to a privat*ised* landscape.
>>
>> There is an important distinction between internal profit centres
>> within a single company is that if the particular interfaces between
>> the various profit centres is found to cause problems to the business,
>> the business can reorganise things. Where there are conflicts between
>> the profit centres, they can be resolved internally without getting
>> lawyers involved.
>
> Only by getting senior managers involved, and they are often less
> good at it, or less inclined to, than lawyers (especially if they
> come from an accountancy background).

Right, that's literally what senior managers are employed for. If the
company has senior managers who are not good at it, chances are the
future of that company will be short.

>> For key business activities, companies have to make the choice of do
>> or buy for various activities, and getting the decision wrong can
>> break a business. In the context of the railway, the decision of how
>> to make the do/buy split was imposed for political rather than
>> business reasons, and that it was done wrongly is a major contributor
>> to the failue of Railtrack.
>
> I'm not completely convinced that the way Railtrack divided its
> operations ("splitting the engineers up", wasn't it) was imposed
> by the decision to separate the TOCs from the infrastructure.

The decision to split the maintenance/renewals engineering functions was
made by the government, not by Railtrack.

>>>> The government of the day was fixated upon creating internal markes
>>>> within organisations based on a flawed belief that commercial
>>>> competition would always create efficiency.
>
>>>  The linkage between competition and efficiency is a complex economic
>>> model. See also the old joke "why is there only one Monopolies
>>> Commission".
>
>>>  Many years ago a friend was working as an electronics engineer in a
>>> big  private company, and developed some software tools. They were so
>>> good  the company decide to turn them into a free-standing product,
>>> and market  it widely. The only problem was his electronics-lab
>>> division didn't have  the budget to licence those tools back for his
>>> own use (the software  division arguing that they needed paying in
>>> order to offer ongoing  support and develop the product further).
>>
>> That's a good example of how getting the organisation wrong can harm a
>> business, but if the different profit centres are part of the same
>> business, they can shuffle numbers around on a spreadsheet by creating
>> nominal internal charges to rectify the problem.
>
> Only if they are inclined to do it, and not just because someone in an
> engineering lab was indulging in what they would probably characterise
> as unwelcome 'special pleading'.

Companies with that kind of bad management commonlly end up being taken
over by competent management, or go under.

>> If the division had been actually split off as a separate company, all
>> of those interfaces would be tied up with contracts and teams of lawyers.
>
> And those lawyers would probably have had enough experience to specify
> that the electronics lab would have a free licence to continuing using
> the software (with perhaps a small maintenance fee for future updates).

Is the company still independent and trading, or has it gone under or
been taken over?

Robin

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 13:58:44 +0000, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 19/03/2023 13:39, Recliner wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 07:25:28 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <kjgb1ipppv6b3p36vuep1u5l3se81bs5r1@4ax.com>, at 13:56:09 on
>>>> Sat, 18 Mar 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, of course I know how much you know about them. It's a big, fat, zero.
>>>>
>>>> Having a bad day are you?
>>>>
>>>>>> My scare resource is time,
>>>>>> not the money to pay others to do half-baked journalism on my behalf.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now you're being utterly absurd! Anyone who can waste as much time as
>>>>> you do in endless, Really Pointless arguments clearly has nothing
>>>>> useful to do with their time.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps if you started fewer such arguments, we could all get on with
>>>> matters in hand.
>>>
>>> Isn't it strange how every single argument in the group involves you?
>>
>> And you.
>
> Actually, no.

That’s true - some of them involve Muttley.

<http://xkcd.com/386>

Sam

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

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 13:01:14 +0000, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
>
>> On 19/03/2023 12:42, Recliner wrote:
>>> Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
>>>> On 19/03/2023 11:56, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> Not even interfering in precisely what was built, where and when?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Most has yet to be built, but there's no argument about what needs
>>>>> building. The where is obvious, and the when depends on raising enough
>>>>> funds. There's still a long way to go.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Around half finished on the new structures. I was there yesterday. They
>>>> are currently replacing 2 bridges around Mountsorrel,on the current
>>>> running lines, half way down the line,so the new bridges havent been
>>>> touched for 3 months.
>>>> 3 bridges are now finished, and ready for track laying, 2 more need to
>>>> be started, one over the factory car park, and one over the road next to
>>>> it, Railway Terrace. They are £2.8m projected cost, £1.8m has been
>>>> raised, and work is expected to start around September, with a finish
>>>> around January 24. Then track laying and signalling will start, which is
>>>> another fund raiser.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the update. When do you think trains might first run through?
>>> As early as 2025?
>>>
>>
>> No idea, as the Northern section still isnt usable due to no maintenance
>> for the last 3 years. There was a stoppage as the (northern, ex NR)
>> bridge over the A60 was in poor condition, I dont think this is the same
>> one as the GCR have recently built, I didnt go that way.
>> As in my other post, the GCR(N) et al, have now resolved their
>> differences, and are starting to sort out their end, but they have a
>> long way to go to get it as well run, and maintained as the GCR
>> infrastructure.
>> They are not bringing a great deal to the re-unification party, their
>> rolling stock isnt great, their infrastructure is creaking, and it seems
>> they have few donors to help them out.
>
> At some future stage, might the GCR absorb the GCR(N)?
>

That’s my guess. The N organisations (I’ve lost track of what they call
themselves now) have now got key members who were/are key members of the
S(outh) bit. There’s been a bit of a clear out of key members of the N end
as far as I can tell. The S organisations have the backing of some well off
folk as well.

On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 15:14:49 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:

>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 13:58:44 +0000, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/03/2023 13:39, Recliner wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 07:25:28 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <kjgb1ipppv6b3p36vuep1u5l3se81bs5r1@4ax.com>, at 13:56:09 on
>>>>> Sat, 18 Mar 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, of course I know how much you know about them. It's a big, fat, zero.
>>>>>
>>>>> Having a bad day are you?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> My scare resource is time,
>>>>>>> not the money to pay others to do half-baked journalism on my behalf.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now you're being utterly absurd! Anyone who can waste as much time as
>>>>>> you do in endless, Really Pointless arguments clearly has nothing
>>>>>> useful to do with their time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps if you started fewer such arguments, we could all get on with
>>>>> matters in hand.
>>>>
>>>> Isn't it strange how every single argument in the group involves you?
>>>
>>> And you.
>>
>> Actually, no.
>
>That’s true - some of them involve Muttley.
>
><http://xkcd.com/386>

And Charles. But everyone apart from Roland also gets involved in civilised, argument-free conversations.

On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 15:26:01 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 13:01:14 +0000, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/03/2023 12:42, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 19/03/2023 11:56, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>> Not even interfering in precisely what was built, where and when?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most has yet to be built, but there's no argument about what needs
>>>>>> building. The where is obvious, and the when depends on raising enough
>>>>>> funds. There's still a long way to go.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Around half finished on the new structures. I was there yesterday. They
>>>>> are currently replacing 2 bridges around Mountsorrel,on the current
>>>>> running lines, half way down the line,so the new bridges havent been
>>>>> touched for 3 months.
>>>>> 3 bridges are now finished, and ready for track laying, 2 more need to
>>>>> be started, one over the factory car park, and one over the road next to
>>>>> it, Railway Terrace. They are £2.8m projected cost, £1.8m has been
>>>>> raised, and work is expected to start around September, with a finish
>>>>> around January 24. Then track laying and signalling will start, which is
>>>>> another fund raiser.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the update. When do you think trains might first run through?
>>>> As early as 2025?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No idea, as the Northern section still isnt usable due to no maintenance
>>> for the last 3 years. There was a stoppage as the (northern, ex NR)
>>> bridge over the A60 was in poor condition, I dont think this is the same
>>> one as the GCR have recently built, I didnt go that way.
>>> As in my other post, the GCR(N) et al, have now resolved their
>>> differences, and are starting to sort out their end, but they have a
>>> long way to go to get it as well run, and maintained as the GCR
>>> infrastructure.
>>> They are not bringing a great deal to the re-unification party, their
>>> rolling stock isnt great, their infrastructure is creaking, and it seems
>>> they have few donors to help them out.
>>
>> At some future stage, might the GCR absorb the GCR(N)?
>>
>
>That’s my guess. The N organisations (I’ve lost track of what they call
>themselves now) have now got key members who were/are key members of the
>S(outh) bit. There’s been a bit of a clear out of key members of the N end
>as far as I can tell. The S organisations have the backing of some well off
>folk as well.

Good, that sounds promising.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 13:01:14 +0000, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/03/2023 12:42, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 19/03/2023 11:56, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>> Not even interfering in precisely what was built, where and when?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most has yet to be built, but there's no argument about what needs
>>>>>> building. The where is obvious, and the when depends on raising enough
>>>>>> funds. There's still a long way to go.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Around half finished on the new structures. I was there yesterday. They
>>>>> are currently replacing 2 bridges around Mountsorrel,on the current
>>>>> running lines, half way down the line,so the new bridges havent been
>>>>> touched for 3 months.
>>>>> 3 bridges are now finished, and ready for track laying, 2 more need to
>>>>> be started, one over the factory car park, and one over the road next to
>>>>> it, Railway Terrace. They are £2.8m projected cost, £1.8m has been
>>>>> raised, and work is expected to start around September, with a finish
>>>>> around January 24. Then track laying and signalling will start, which is
>>>>> another fund raiser.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the update. When do you think trains might first run through?
>>>> As early as 2025?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No idea, as the Northern section still isnt usable due to no maintenance
>>> for the last 3 years. There was a stoppage as the (northern, ex NR)
>>> bridge over the A60 was in poor condition, I dont think this is the same
>>> one as the GCR have recently built, I didnt go that way.
>>> As in my other post, the GCR(N) et al, have now resolved their
>>> differences, and are starting to sort out their end, but they have a
>>> long way to go to get it as well run, and maintained as the GCR
>>> infrastructure.
>>> They are not bringing a great deal to the re-unification party, their
>>> rolling stock isnt great, their infrastructure is creaking, and it seems
>>> they have few donors to help them out.
>>
>> At some future stage, might the GCR absorb the GCR(N)?
>>
>
> That’s my guess. The N organisations (I’ve lost track of what they call
> themselves now) have now got key members who were/are key members of the
> S(outh) bit. There’s been a bit of a clear out of key members of the N end
> as far as I can tell. The S organisations have the backing of some well off
> folk as well.
>

I'm probably very out of date, but I thought there was a rail-served
factory (British Gypsum) on the GCR(N) line, that used one of the track
pair to the MML connection. But, looking at Google Maps, the second track
seems to have gone, along with the track connection into the factory?
Though there does seem to be the remains of a loading siding.

I had been wondering if the reunited GCR could have another long double
track section north of Loughborough. But, although the track bed is intact,
I assume that would be just too expensive to reinstate?

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 13:01:14 +0000, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 19/03/2023 12:42, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 19/03/2023 11:56, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>> Not even interfering in precisely what was built, where and when?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most has yet to be built, but there's no argument about what needs
>>>>>>> building. The where is obvious, and the when depends on raising enough
>>>>>>> funds. There's still a long way to go.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Around half finished on the new structures. I was there yesterday. They
>>>>>> are currently replacing 2 bridges around Mountsorrel,on the current
>>>>>> running lines, half way down the line,so the new bridges havent been
>>>>>> touched for 3 months.
>>>>>> 3 bridges are now finished, and ready for track laying, 2 more need to
>>>>>> be started, one over the factory car park, and one over the road next to
>>>>>> it, Railway Terrace. They are £2.8m projected cost, £1.8m has been
>>>>>> raised, and work is expected to start around September, with a finish
>>>>>> around January 24. Then track laying and signalling will start, which is
>>>>>> another fund raiser.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the update. When do you think trains might first run through?
>>>>> As early as 2025?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No idea, as the Northern section still isnt usable due to no maintenance
>>>> for the last 3 years. There was a stoppage as the (northern, ex NR)
>>>> bridge over the A60 was in poor condition, I dont think this is the same
>>>> one as the GCR have recently built, I didnt go that way.
>>>> As in my other post, the GCR(N) et al, have now resolved their
>>>> differences, and are starting to sort out their end, but they have a
>>>> long way to go to get it as well run, and maintained as the GCR
>>>> infrastructure.
>>>> They are not bringing a great deal to the re-unification party, their
>>>> rolling stock isnt great, their infrastructure is creaking, and it seems
>>>> they have few donors to help them out.
>>>
>>> At some future stage, might the GCR absorb the GCR(N)?
>>>
>>
>> That’s my guess. The N organisations (I’ve lost track of what they call
>> themselves now) have now got key members who were/are key members of the
>> S(outh) bit. There’s been a bit of a clear out of key members of the N end
>> as far as I can tell. The S organisations have the backing of some well off
>> folk as well.
>>
>
> I'm probably very out of date, but I thought there was a rail-served
> factory (British Gypsum) on the GCR(N) line, that used one of the track
> pair to the MML connection. But, looking at Google Maps, the second track
> seems to have gone, along with the track connection into the factory?
> Though there does seem to be the remains of a loading siding.
>
> I had been wondering if the reunited GCR could have another long double
> track section north of Loughborough. But, although the track bed is intact,
> I assume that would be just too expensive to reinstate?
>

I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is the chord from the MML to
the GCR(N) and the subsequent track to the factory is all out of service at
the moment due to the poor condition of the infrastructure. Basically the
GCR(N) civils infrastructure is knackered. Even when the gap is bridged
there will be a lot of work and expense to get through running over the
whole route never mind doubling the track.

On 19/03/2023 18:17, Tweed wrote:
>> I had been wondering if the reunited GCR could have another long double
>> track section north of Loughborough. But, although the track bed is intact,
>> I assume that would be just too expensive to reinstate?
>>
> I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is the chord from the MML to
> the GCR(N) and the subsequent track to the factory is all out of service at
> the moment due to the poor condition of the infrastructure. Basically the
> GCR(N) civils infrastructure is knackered. Even when the gap is bridged
> there will be a lot of work and expense to get through running over the
> whole route never mind doubling the track.

Yes, that about sums it up. All the previous rail traffic to the plaster
factory now goes by lorry. There is one rail bridge that failed an
inspection, probably 4 years ago, and they hadnt got money to repair it,
and by not repairing it, they had no income from the Plaster factory
Trains, so the in-fighting started, and went on for 2+ years, until it
was clear they cant get out of this mess themselves, and have agreed
that it is to become, in effect, one organisation, and, I don't know
how, some money has been released to pay for essential repairs.
Getting the plaster traffic back onto the rails may be more difficult.
--
Remove the '+' and replace with 'plus' to reply by email

On 19/03/2023 11:55, Roland Perry wrote:
snipped authors.
>> No, no politics, just a shortage of funds.
>
> No planning committee to convince it's a good idea? That's a novelty.
>
>> And the replacement bridges probably won't be in use for years,
>
> Delayed by planning/regulatory issues perhaps.

No, delayed by lack of funds, as previously stated. Everyone at the GCR
believes it is a good thing.All Planning permissions are in place.
The current fundraising is doing really well, 3 bridges are now
finished, over the MML, over the canal, and over the A60.
The next part is a viaduct of the car park (Opposite side of the A60
from Brush), work which is expected to start this year. Total cost is
expected to be £2.8m, they are at around £1.8m now.
But, you'd know that with a little bit of searching, rather than
speculating on everything.

>> so there's been no effect yet on the operations of either GCR.
>>
>>> Also internal politics very much evident on the northern section
not so long ago.
>>
>> Different company, but it's not uncommon for volunteer societies to have
>> disagreements.
>
> The disagreements were I think about the arrangements for leasing the
line, which might belong to the GCR not the volunteer society running
the limited heritage operation out of Rushcliffe.

No, it was cost, and running costs to be charged. You are right in that
one Company own the line, and another run the trains. Neither had enough
money to do anything, so, no-one could afford to repair a bridge, and
without that repair, the running line wasnt long enough to make it
viable, hence no trains have run for 3+ years now. They have lost many
thousands, as the NR link to the plaster factory has been shut for that
time. The Infrastructure Co. (East Midlands Railway Trust) had leased
the line from NR, so it wasnt NR responsibility to repair the track/bridge.

It has all recently been sorted, amicably, where the two parties are
now, in effect, one, and they are fund raising now to get cash to repair
bridges and track. It is opening uo as a 3 mile line initially, and once
funds start coming in, they'll extend running further South.

--
Remove the '+' and replace with 'plus' to reply by email

Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
> On 19/03/2023 11:55, Roland Perry wrote:
> snipped authors.
>>> No, no politics, just a shortage of funds.
>>
>> No planning committee to convince it's a good idea? That's a novelty.
>>
>>> And the replacement bridges probably won't be in use for years,
>>
>> Delayed by planning/regulatory issues perhaps.
>
> No, delayed by lack of funds, as previously stated. Everyone at the GCR
> believes it is a good thing.All Planning permissions are in place.
> The current fundraising is doing really well, 3 bridges are now
> finished, over the MML, over the canal, and over the A60.
> The next part is a viaduct of the car park (Opposite side of the A60
> from Brush), work which is expected to start this year. Total cost is
> expected to be £2.8m, they are at around £1.8m now.
> But, you'd know that with a little bit of searching, rather than
> speculating on everything.
>
>>> so there's been no effect yet on the operations of either GCR.
>>>
>>>> Also internal politics very much evident on the northern section
> not so long ago.
>>>
>>> Different company, but it's not uncommon for volunteer societies to have
>>> disagreements.
>>
>> The disagreements were I think about the arrangements for leasing the
> line, which might belong to the GCR not the volunteer society running
> the limited heritage operation out of Rushcliffe.
>
> No, it was cost, and running costs to be charged. You are right in that
> one Company own the line, and another run the trains. Neither had enough
> money to do anything, so, no-one could afford to repair a bridge, and
> without that repair, the running line wasnt long enough to make it
> viable, hence no trains have run for 3+ years now. They have lost many
> thousands, as the NR link to the plaster factory has been shut for that
> time. The Infrastructure Co. (East Midlands Railway Trust) had leased
> the line from NR, so it wasnt NR responsibility to repair the track/bridge.
>
> It has all recently been sorted, amicably, where the two parties are
> now, in effect, one, and they are fund raising now to get cash to repair
> bridges and track. It is opening uo as a 3 mile line initially, and once
> funds start coming in, they'll extend running further South.
>

What's the situation regarding the GCR loco shed? Does that still need to
be moved?

Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
> On 19/03/2023 11:55, Roland Perry wrote:
> snipped authors.
>>> No, no politics, just a shortage of funds.
>>
>> No planning committee to convince it's a good idea? That's a novelty.
>>
>>> And the replacement bridges probably won't be in use for years,
>>
>> Delayed by planning/regulatory issues perhaps.
>
> No, delayed by lack of funds, as previously stated. Everyone at the GCR
> believes it is a good thing.All Planning permissions are in place.
> The current fundraising is doing really well, 3 bridges are now
> finished, over the MML, over the canal, and over the A60.
> The next part is a viaduct of the car park (Opposite side of the A60
> from Brush), work which is expected to start this year. Total cost is
> expected to be £2.8m, they are at around £1.8m now.
> But, you'd know that with a little bit of searching, rather than
> speculating on everything.
>
>>> so there's been no effect yet on the operations of either GCR.
>>>
>>>> Also internal politics very much evident on the northern section
> not so long ago.
>>>
>>> Different company, but it's not uncommon for volunteer societies to have
>>> disagreements.
>>
>> The disagreements were I think about the arrangements for leasing the
> line, which might belong to the GCR not the volunteer society running
> the limited heritage operation out of Rushcliffe.
>
> No, it was cost, and running costs to be charged. You are right in that
> one Company own the line, and another run the trains. Neither had enough
> money to do anything, so, no-one could afford to repair a bridge, and
> without that repair, the running line wasnt long enough to make it
> viable, hence no trains have run for 3+ years now. They have lost many
> thousands, as the NR link to the plaster factory has been shut for that
> time. The Infrastructure Co. (East Midlands Railway Trust) had leased
> the line from NR, so it wasnt NR responsibility to repair the track/bridge.
>
> It has all recently been sorted, amicably, where the two parties are
> now, in effect, one, and they are fund raising now to get cash to repair
> bridges and track. It is opening uo as a 3 mile line initially, and once
> funds start coming in, they'll extend running further South.
>

Will it be possible to construct a large, road accessible Nottingham South
terminus on the main line, north of the junction to the branch?

On 19/03/2023 21:56, Recliner wrote:
> What's the situation regarding the GCR loco shed? Does that still need to
> be moved?

I presume they still want a new shed, the link below is over 2 years
old, but it was announced last October that they have the funding now:
https://www.gcrailway.co.uk/shedappeal/

--
Remove the '+' and replace with 'plus' to reply by email

Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
> On 19/03/2023 21:56, Recliner wrote:
>> What's the situation regarding the GCR loco shed? Does that still need to
>> be moved?
>
> I presume they still want a new shed, the link below is over 2 years
> old, but it was announced last October that they have the funding now:
> https://www.gcrailway.co.uk/shedappeal/

Thanks. Presumably it needs to be moved slightly compared to the old one,
which was built on the then disused trackbed of the through lines?

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Will it be possible to construct a large, road accessible Nottingham South
> terminus on the main line, north of the junction to the branch?

Where would you put it? Currently the tracks only extend as far as
Ruddington, which doesn't have convenient road access (best to be hoped for
are narrow tracks from residential streets with no parking available)

Ideally you'd want a junction with the tram at Ruddington Lane, but even
that is not well served for road access (there's the A52 on a flyover) and
there's a nature reserve on the trackbed. Although maybe a single track and
single platform in the style of the Nene Valley station at Peterborough
might be achievable.

Perhaps another option would be a west to south curve at Rushcliffe and
develop the existing country park site. Not so good for Nottingham though.

Theo

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
>> On 19/03/2023 21:56, Recliner wrote:
>>> What's the situation regarding the GCR loco shed? Does that still need to
>>> be moved?
>>
>> I presume they still want a new shed, the link below is over 2 years
>> old, but it was announced last October that they have the funding now:
>> https://www.gcrailway.co.uk/shedappeal/
>
> Thanks. Presumably it needs to be moved slightly compared to the old one,
> which was built on the then disused trackbed of the through lines?
>
>

I did read of a plan to run a single line to the west of the shed through
to the new bridge.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
>>> On 19/03/2023 21:56, Recliner wrote:
>>>> What's the situation regarding the GCR loco shed? Does that still need to
>>>> be moved?
>>>
>>> I presume they still want a new shed, the link below is over 2 years
>>> old, but it was announced last October that they have the funding now:
>>> https://www.gcrailway.co.uk/shedappeal/
>>
>> Thanks. Presumably it needs to be moved slightly compared to the old one,
>> which was built on the then disused trackbed of the through lines?
>>
>>
>
> I did read of a plan to run a single line to the west of the shed through
> to the new bridge.
>

One of the things I'm unclear about is whether, in the long term, the
reunited GCR expects to run regular through trains across the
no-longer-missing link? So, for example, will there be regular northbound
departures from Loughborough? Or will the line be used mainly for stock
transfers?

And will there be a large, road-accessible station with parking on the
northern section of the main line? That would provide a useful new access
point for visitors.

On 20/03/2023 11:13, Recliner wrote:
> One of the things I'm unclear about is whether, in the long term, the
> reunited GCR expects to run regular through trains across the
> no-longer-missing link? So, for example, will there be regular northbound
> departures from Loughborough? ....

Err, yes, that's why they want to rebuild all of the demolished bridges.

> And will there be a large, road-accessible station with parking on the
> northern section of the main line? That would provide a useful new access
> point for visitors.

Only the current Ruddington (Nottingham Heritgae Centre) is in the
current plan, though soundings were made about extending, eventually, a
few miles further North. Just like the GCR, which finally made it to the
outskirts of Leicester around 25 years ago, ~25 years after being founded.
There are no buildings on the way to Nottingham, until the old GCR
alignment meets the current Tram lines, with the tram lines following
the GCR alignment, just to the west of Clifton Boulevard/A52 on the
south Western edge of Nottigham.

--
Remove the '+' and replace with 'plus' to reply by email

In message <bgae1i5279qid6jg4dj5ohp6et7h7g9atk@4ax.com>, at 15:29:25 on
Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 15:14:49 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
><ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 13:58:44 +0000, Coffee
>>><martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 19/03/2023 13:39, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 07:25:28 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <kjgb1ipppv6b3p36vuep1u5l3se81bs5r1@4ax.com>, at 13:56:09 on
>>>>>> Sat, 18 Mar 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, of course I know how much you know about them. It's a big,
>>>>>>>fat, zero.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Having a bad day are you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My scare resource is time,
>>>>>>>> not the money to pay others to do half-baked journalism on my behalf.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now you're being utterly absurd! Anyone who can waste as much time as
>>>>>>> you do in endless, Really Pointless arguments clearly has nothing
>>>>>>> useful to do with their time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps if you started fewer such arguments, we could all get on with
>>>>>> matters in hand.
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't it strange how every single argument in the group involves you?
>>>>
>>>> And you.
>>>
>>> Actually, no.
>>
>>That’s true - some of them involve Muttley.
>>
>><http://xkcd.com/386>
>
>And Charles. But everyone apart from Roland also gets involved in
>civilised, argument-free conversations.

You've got some very selective vision if you can't see my argument-free
conversations.
--
Roland Perry

In message <v24e1id26nsj4j5fhrq27cap6pvj8g9j01@4ax.com>, at 13:39:19 on
Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 07:25:28 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <kjgb1ipppv6b3p36vuep1u5l3se81bs5r1@4ax.com>, at 13:56:09 on
>>Sat, 18 Mar 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>Yes, of course I know how much you know about them. It's a big, fat, zero.
>>
>>Having a bad day are you?
>>
>>>>My scare resource is time,
>>>>not the money to pay others to do half-baked journalism on my behalf.
>>>
>>>Now you're being utterly absurd! Anyone who can waste as much time as
>>>you do in endless, Really Pointless arguments clearly has nothing
>>>useful to do with their time.
>>
>>Perhaps if you started fewer such arguments, we could all get on with
>>matters in hand.
>
>Isn't it strange how every single argument in the group involves you?

I agree that I'm dog-piled significantly more than anyone else. But it's
not quite every argument in the group, and I very rarely start one.

What happens is I post something which is disagreed with, and I then
explain why I don't think that disagreement is valid.

A league table of hecklers, should someone wish to compile it, would
almost certainly have you at the top.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tv74vc$31fa7$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:07:41 on Sun, 19 Mar
2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tv6s7o$3009l$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:38:32 on Sun, 19 Mar
>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tv45e9$2f4dh$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:57:14 on Sat, 18 Mar
>>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>>> For some organisations there may
>>>>>>> never be a viable private structure (see water).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I can get electrons which are apparently exclusively from renewable
>>>>>> sources hundreds of miles away, why can't I buy water from the Thames
>>>>>> rather than the Great Ouse? That's not such a daft idea as it sounds
>>>>>> although the Greenwash energy *is* pretty daft (although firms like
>>>>>> Eurostar seem to think it boosts their reputation) because water is
>>>>>> piped/pumped from Norfolk to Essex via the Ouse/Stour scheme.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don’t know about the connectivity in your area, but in general
>>>>> the reason you can’t just get water from any random supplier is
>>>>> because there’s no national water grid.
>>>>
>>>> Not a national one, but there are local grids. See people in Colchester
>>>> drinking water which once flowed past my window and through Norfolk
>>>> almost up to The Wash, before being re-routed via Suffolk and down to
>>>> Essex.
>>>>
>>>>> The national electrical grid acts as a reservoir into which electrons
>>>>> are pumped (and then pumped out again because it’s AC)
>>>>
>>>> The only pumping going on is at locations like Dinorwig (and that's
>>>> water again!). The wires don't bulge with extra electrons when the wind
>>>> blows hard, to be consumed later when the sun sets. Although that *is*
>>>> how the gas grid works.
>>>
>>> An analogy, dear boy! Of course there is very little storage in the
>>> national electricity grid
>>
>> It was the word "reservoir", that I was doubtful about.
>
>OK.
>
>>> but AIUI there are voltage and phase changes as
>>> demand and supply are matched to each other, and they do have to match.
>>>
>>>>> and so long as the accounting matches up the suppliers and customers
>>>>> then it All Just Works.
>>>>
>>>> The CoOp once boasted that all its shops were supplied by wind power (a
>>>> typical bit of greenwash). I don't see the lights going out on very calm
>>>> days.
>>>
>>> Perhaps claiming 100% wind is exaggeration, but 100% renewables is
>>> possible.
>>
>> It is now, but back then (unless you call Nuclear a renewable, but I'm
>> sure the CoOp wouldn't have opened that can of worms) there'd be the
>> night-times with no wind to cope with.
>
>There would also be day-times with no wind, and I don’t suppose the power
>demand of a CoOp store varies hugely between day and night.

Heating, lighting etc is mainly hours they are open. At other times
mainly all they need is refrigeration, which will be lower if pesky
people didn't keep opening the cabinets to fill up their shopping
baskets.

>I’m sure nuclear isn’t renewable, but 40+ years ago it wasn’t
>clear whether building a nuclear power station was a net consumer or
>supplier of energy, despite its clear utility. I’ve been unable to
>find anything more recent to cover that question. Since then there
>have been increases in power factor and efficiency, but it’s also got
>a lot more expensive to build them, expense being a loose proxy for
>energy use.

I agree entirely about that proxy. And then there's the carbon footprint
of all that concrete (also pertinent for the foundations of on-shore
wind turbines).

>> Wind was quite trendy, even woke, and the school I was a governor at had
>> significant pressure to install a small/medium-sized wind turbine, and I
>> looked at the sums. My conclusion (which people didn't want to hear) was
>> that it would be fine to spend £20k, or whatever, on what would
>> undoubtedly be a useful teaching aid, but if they expected the long term
>> energy contribution to be more than a couple light bulbs, they'd been
>> mis-sold.
>
>Yes. We’ve been looking at moving house recently and the Energy
>Performance Certificate recommendations are interesting. Most forms of
>insulation seem to have a payback period in the 10s of years, which seems
>pretty marginal, especially using cost as a proxy for energy use.

There are some forms of insulation (such as double glazing and lofts)
which are low hanging fruit. But diminishing returns set in quite soon
after that.

It cost me perhaps £4k to re-double glaze the bay window at the front
of my house, and it's going to take a very long time to recoup that from
a reduced heating bill for one room.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tv74e0$31c11$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:58:24 on Sun, 19 Mar
2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tv6ruc$2vuo4$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:33:32 on Sun, 19 Mar
>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <turva5$q35j$7@dont-email.me>, at 08:23:33 on Wed, 15 Mar
>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, the infamous "the lurkers agree with me" ploy.
>>>
>>> FTAOD I wasn’t confused.
>>
>> I wasn't "confused". I was seeking clarification before making my mind
>> up what the question meant.
>
>OK then; I knew exactly which trains Recliner meant - I didn’t need any
>clarification about which ones were capable of running at which top speed.
>
>And which question are you referring to? In this subthread the only
>question is from you (which you’ve snipped; paraphrase: can Voyagers run at
>140 mph?) andI’m not seeing anything obvious if I go somewhat further back.
>
>So perhaps I am confused, but not by Recliner.

It was about the crippling of the WCML by Railtrack's failed enhancement
project. What I wanted to check was that no Voyagers were planned to run
on the WCML, and hence it was only Pendolinos which were crippled (any
Voyagers being able to attain their 125mph as planned).
--
Roland Perry