In message <tv70ca$30lt8$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:49:14 on Sun, 19 Mar
2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 19/03/2023 11:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <tv6rfa$2vqtd$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:25:30 on Sun, 19 Mar
>>2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 19/03/2023 11:17, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <tv6o12$2v8or$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:26:42 on Sun, 19
>>>>Mar 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> On 19/03/2023 09:55, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tv6jdo$2uelg$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:08:07 on Sun, 19
>>>>>>Mar  2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Back to the original point, I don’t think we’ve ever found
>>>>>>>>>a stable  long  term structure for UK railways since they
>>>>>>>>>were invented.  preserved  Great Central Railway is now
>>>>>>>>>celebrating 50 years of  operation. They  point  out they
>>>>>>>>>have lasted longer than  the  original GCR, LNER and BR.
>>>>>>>>>(For the avoidance of doubt I’m  not  advocating the preserved railway
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  The railway might be celebrating 50yrs, but the corporate
>>>>>>>>structure  has  been re-jigged during that time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would suggest GCR has had a lot less political interference in
>>>>>>>its  operations in the last 50 years than any of the
>>>>>>>organisations it's  quoting.
>>>>
>>>>>>  There will have been many external "interferences" in its
>>>>>>*operations*  over the years, most recently the reinstatement of
>>>>>>the bridge at  Loughborough linking the north and south sections.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not political.
>>
>>>>  I expect there's politics involved in being able to reinstate
>>>>major structures like that.
>>>
>>> That's not interference.

>> Not even interfering in precisely what was built, where and when?
>
>Which politicians would be involved?

In the short term, the ones on the planning committee; in the longer
term the ones who wrote the local structure plan (or whatever it's
called). Some might also be involved in decisions about awarding grants,
making sure that things like public road access to the stations etc is
adequately provisioned.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tv6t9e$3065b$5@dont-email.me>, at 11:56:30 on Sun, 19 Mar
2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tv6rfa$2vqtd$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:25:30 on Sun, 19 Mar
>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 19/03/2023 11:17, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <tv6o12$2v8or$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:26:42 on Sun, 19 Mar
>>>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> On 19/03/2023 09:55, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tv6jdo$2uelg$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:08:07 on Sun, 19
>>>>>> Mar 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Back to the original point, I don’t think we’ve ever found a
>>>>>>>>> stable  long  term structure for UK railways since they were
>>>>>>>>> invented.  preserved  Great Central Railway is now celebrating
>>>>>>>>> 50 years of  operation. They  point  out they have lasted
>>>>>>>>> longer than the  original GCR, LNER and BR. (For the 
>>>>>>>>> avoidance of doubt I’m not  advocating the preserved railway
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  The railway might be celebrating 50yrs, but the corporate
>>>>>>>> structure  has  been re-jigged during that time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would suggest GCR has had a lot less political interference in
>>>>>>> its operations in the last 50 years than any of the organisations
>>>>>>> it's quoting.
>>>>
>>>>>>  There will have been many external "interferences" in its
>>>>>> *operations*  over the years, most recently the reinstatement of
>>>>>> the bridge at  Loughborough linking the north and south sections.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not political.
>>
>>>> I expect there's politics involved in being able to reinstate major
>>>> structures like that.
>>>
>>> That's not interference.
>>
>> 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.

Is this "lack of argument" because GCR accepts they are bound by the
various rules, when perhaps in the absence of such rules they'd have
built something cheaper and sooner, but with greater impact on the
rest of society?

>The where is obvious, and the when depends on raising enough funds.
>There's still a long way to go.

--
Roland Perry

In message <tv7q7q$353dd$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:10:34 on Sun, 19 Mar
2023, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> remarked:
>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.

Good. I'm glad we have now agreed that it's not a free-for-all and some
adherence to external constraints like planning permission is required.

>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.

If everyone had to research every topic they post about in detail before
daring to put fingers to keyboard, why would we need a usenet group?

>>> 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.

The main "arrangements" required in such circumstances are regarding the
costs.

>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,

Good. It was rather sad to see war-by-press-release breaking out.

>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.

--
Roland Perry

In message <tv6t2s$3051k$5@dont-email.me>, at 11:53:00 on Sun, 19 Mar
2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>I suggest you stop your inane arguments, and just get your carer to explain
>the posts to you.

Hurrah! Another one for the scrapbook.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tv78h2$31uhd$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:08:16 on Sun, 19 Mar
2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:

>> 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.

That split I can understand. But people seem to be saying that the
damage was done not by such a two-way split, but a multiple-way split
*within* each of those two camps.

>>>>  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.

Unless they are "too big to fail", or simply make slightly less enormous
profits as a result.

>>> 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?

It was always a plc, and is prospering. Albeit with some possibly
needlessly frustrated engineering staff on the payroll.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> 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).

But Voyagers *were* planned to run on the WCML to Holyhead. Avanti still
ran them, still tilting, southwards from Edinburgh until recently, but I
can’t remember where they were going to.

Sam

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

On 22/03/2023 18:49, Sam Wilson wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> 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).
>
> But Voyagers *were* planned to run on the WCML to Holyhead. Avanti still
> ran them, still tilting, southwards from Edinburgh until recently, but I
> can’t remember where they were going to.

I thought the Pendilinos were hauled by diesel to Holyhead/

On 22/03/2023 18:13, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <tv78h2$31uhd$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:08:16 on Sun, 19 Mar
> 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>
>>>  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.
>
> That split I can understand. But people seem to be saying that the
> damage was done not by such a two-way split, but a multiple-way split
> *within* each of those two camps.
The split took away engineering capability to the extent even the board
had no "engineering director" or anywhere else.

>
>>>>>  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.
>
> Unless they are "too big to fail", or simply make slightly less enormous
> profits as a result.
>
>>>> 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?
>
> It was always a plc, and is prospering. Albeit with some possibly
> needlessly frustrated engineering staff on the payroll.

Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 22/03/2023 18:49, Sam Wilson wrote:
> > But Voyagers *were* planned to run on the WCML to Holyhead. Avanti still
> > ran them, still tilting, southwards from Edinburgh until recently, but I
> > can’t remember where they were going to.
>
> I thought the Pendilinos were hauled by diesel to Holyhead/

Supposedly some 221s were ordered for Holyhead and commenced operating
there, but in 2004 were replaced by Pendolino drags. I'm not entirely sure
why, although Charlie Hulme's website says:

"In Summer 2003, during the process of creation of the 57/3s, a change of
plan occurred; legend has it that this was brought about by the desire of
North Wales MPs for a full breakfast service when travelling to London,
something that the small Class 221 galley could not offer. Two weekday
return workings to London would therefore be Pendolinos, hauled by Class
57/3s between Holyhead and Crewe. The original order for locos was
increased from 12 to 16, and the fitting of a 'Dellner' automatic coupler to
the locos was hastily designed, so that the coupling and uncoupling at Crewe
could be done more quickly than by using the 390's emergency screw-coupling
as had originally been envisaged for 'dragging' and diversion work. "
http://www.nwrail.org.uk/c57-390.htm

Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 22/03/2023 18:49, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> 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).
>>
>> But Voyagers *were* planned to run on the WCML to Holyhead. Avanti still
>> ran them, still tilting, southwards from Edinburgh until recently, but I
>> can’t remember where they were going to.
>
> I thought the Pendilinos were hauled by diesel to Holyhead/

Latterly they were, but I don’t think that was the initial plan. Here we
go: “There were 44 Class 221 trains built, numbered 221 101 to 221 144. 101
to 140 were five-car trains built for Virgin Cross Country, and 141 to 144
were four-car sets which were intended for use by Virgin West Coast on the
London - North Wales service. “

<http://nwrail.org.uk/c221.htm> from our former resident, Charlie Hulme.

Sam

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

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 22/03/2023 18:49, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>> But Voyagers *were* planned to run on the WCML to Holyhead. Avanti still
>>> ran them, still tilting, southwards from Edinburgh until recently, but I
>>> can’t remember where they were going to.
>>
>> I thought the Pendilinos were hauled by diesel to Holyhead/
>
> Supposedly some 221s were ordered for Holyhead and commenced operating
> there, but in 2004 were replaced by Pendolino drags. I'm not entirely sure
> why, although Charlie Hulme's website says:
>
> "In Summer 2003, during the process of creation of the 57/3s, a change of
> plan occurred; legend has it that this was brought about by the desire of
> North Wales MPs for a full breakfast service when travelling to London,
> something that the small Class 221 galley could not offer. Two weekday
> return workings to London would therefore be Pendolinos, hauled by Class
> 57/3s between Holyhead and Crewe. The original order for locos was
> increased from 12 to 16, and the fitting of a 'Dellner' automatic coupler to
> the locos was hastily designed, so that the coupling and uncoupling at Crewe
> could be done more quickly than by using the 390's emergency screw-coupling
> as had originally been envisaged for 'dragging' and diversion work. "
> http://www.nwrail.org.uk/c57-390.htm

Thank you - I missed that snippet on Charlie’s site. Shame he no longer
posts here.

Sam

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

On 22/03/2023 18:49, Sam Wilson wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> 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).
>
> But Voyagers *were* planned to run on the WCML to Holyhead. Avanti still
> ran them, still tilting, southwards from Edinburgh until recently, but I
> can’t remember where they were going to.

At the time they were introduced, I believe there were direct ICXC trains
between the south of England and Glasgow via Birmingham and Manchester.
These would have used long stretches of the WCML, which is why the 221s were
tilt-enabled.

On 22/03/2023 17:28, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <v24e1id26nsj4j5fhrq27cap6pvj8g9j01@4ax.com>, at 13:39:19 on
> Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>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.

You do know that you don't have to reply to every post? Even if they're
responding to one of yours?

Just in this single thread today, so far I have nine posts from Roland Perry
and four from everybody else. I have just increased the second count to six.

Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 22/03/2023 18:49, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> 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).
>>
>> But Voyagers *were* planned to run on the WCML to Holyhead. Avanti still
>> ran them, still tilting, southwards from Edinburgh until recently, but I
>> can’t remember where they were going to.
>
> I thought the Pendilinos were hauled by diesel to Holyhead/
>
>

Not since 2012 <http://www.nwrail.org.uk/c57-390.htm> (quoting Charlie
Hulme, again!).

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <e6esej-kbu.ln1@castle.rilynn.me.uk>, at 23:05:18 on Wed, 22
Mar 2023, Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> remarked:
>On 22/03/2023 17:28, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <v24e1id26nsj4j5fhrq27cap6pvj8g9j01@4ax.com>, at 13:39:19 on
>> Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>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.
>
>You do know that you don't have to reply to every post? Even if they're
>responding to one of yours?

Sometimes I get up in the morning to a dozen or more comments from just
one poster. It's not normal for me to reply to all of those (or even
most of them).

Yesterday I was more active due to taking some extra time off to try to
catch up (responsible for 28/77 postings, so I can see why that stood
out). But overall I posted just three on Monday, and twelve on Tuesday.

You may be interested to know I have a little over 400 unread messages
(most of which I'm ignoring). In the long term, I have not posted a
single message in almost half the threads here.

{My newsreader sorts and counts things like this with a couple of
clicks}

>Just in this single thread today, so far I have nine posts from Roland Perry
>and four from everybody else. I have just increased the second count to six.

Currently, in this thread I have overnight: Three from myself, three
from sam, two each from yourself and coffee, and one each from theo and
anna. Seems like a reasonable spread.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tvfika$o8pm$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:49:46 on Wed, 22 Mar
2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> 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).
>
>But Voyagers *were* planned to run on the WCML to Holyhead.

And I recently caught one of those!

But yes, you've put your finger on it; hence my seeing clarification of
the statement:

"the trains and the line are capable of 140mph, but the
signalling still isn't."

So it must be either 140mph Voyagers (unlikely though that seemed) or
just some(qv) of the trains were 140mph.

>Avanti still ran them, still tilting, southwards from Edinburgh until
>recently, but I can’t remember where they were going to.

I've seen VT units at Haymarket on their way to south via the West
Coast. Here's a 2015-vintage spider map, showing the routes and the
stock then:

<http://www.projectmapping.co.uk/Reviews/Resources/Virgin%20network-
map%20Jan%202015.pdf>
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> Sometimes I get up in the morning to a dozen or more comments from just
> one poster. It's not normal for me to reply to all of those (or even
> most of them).
>
> Yesterday I was more active due to taking some extra time off to try to
> catch up (responsible for 28/77 postings, so I can see why that stood
> out). But overall I posted just three on Monday, and twelve on Tuesday.
>
> You may be interested to know I have a little over 400 unread messages
> (most of which I'm ignoring). In the long term, I have not posted a
> single message in almost half the threads here.
>
> {My newsreader sorts and counts things like this with a couple of
> clicks}

You do know this isn't email? A conversation doesn't need a personal reply
to every post.

I'm guessing your client gives you a list of replies to your postings, and
you feel the need to reply to them individually? That's... unusual. In
most clients you only see the whole conversation and can drop back in when
it suits you. If you don't come back in for a while that's fine, the
conversation moves on.

I wonder if that's why people feel this is argumentative, because it ends up
like you're having N discussions in parallel, but when replying to single
postings in multiple (sub)threads it's easy to lose track of the context and
end up contradicting what you stated earlier (eg the scope of a question).
Hence claims of 'moving the goalposts'.

Theo

In message <lJc*lRWbz@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 10:34:23 on Thu,
23 Mar 2023, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> Sometimes I get up in the morning to a dozen or more comments from just
>> one poster. It's not normal for me to reply to all of those (or even
>> most of them).
>>
>> Yesterday I was more active due to taking some extra time off to try to
>> catch up (responsible for 28/77 postings, so I can see why that stood
>> out). But overall I posted just three on Monday, and twelve on Tuesday.
>>
>> You may be interested to know I have a little over 400 unread messages
>> (most of which I'm ignoring). In the long term, I have not posted a
>> single message in almost half the threads here.
>>
>> {My newsreader sorts and counts things like this with a couple of
>> clicks}
>
>You do know this isn't email? A conversation doesn't need a personal reply
>to every post.

Sure, that's why I'm only posting as few as I do. I hope you recognise
that this reply to you has some kind of "need"?

>I'm guessing your client gives you a list of replies to your postings, and
>you feel the need to reply to them individually?

No, the one thing it doesn't do is highlight the postings which are
replies to my earlier ones.

I did have an OLR on a completely different social media platform, for
which I wrote such an add-on, because the volume there was orders of
magnitude higher than uk.r

>That's... unusual. In most clients you only see the whole
>conversation and can drop back in when it suits you. If you don't come
>back in for a while that's fine, the conversation moves on.

Like this posting, I don't have time to say something I don't regard as
necessary. And yes, the conversation moves on, and I tune it out. Hence
the 400 uk.r postings currently to hand I've not even read, and [are you
sitting comfortably] and 2,500 in the other usenet group I skim most
days. I won't count uk.d-i-y (14,000 unread) because that's just got
insane amounts of traffic in it.

>I wonder if that's why people feel this is argumentative, because it ends up
>like you're having N discussions in parallel,

It's not "like having", I *am* having. There's more than one active
thread here, and sometimes subthreads diverge into different topics.

We are deep into media-stuies stuff here, having left Mark Harper behind
long ago.

>but when replying to single postings in multiple (sub)threads it's easy
>to lose track of the context and end up contradicting what you stated
>earlier (eg the scope of a question).

I hope I don't contradict myself.

>Hence claims of 'moving the goalposts'.

Those claims usually arise because someone misunderstands a posting of
mine, puts words in my mouth, and I then try to say "no, that wasn't
what I said", this is apparently called "moving the goalposts".

Not sure goalposts are the right noun anyway; but if we insist, I'm
trying to put them back where I intended them to be all along.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tvfk0n$obfi$2@dont-email.me>, at 19:13:27 on Wed, 22 Mar
2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>On 22/03/2023 18:13, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <tv78h2$31uhd$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:08:16 on Sun, 19 Mar
>>2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>
>>>>  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.

>> That split I can understand. But people seem to be saying that the
>>damage was done not by such a two-way split, but a multiple-way split
>>*within* each of those two camps.

>The split took away engineering capability to the extent even the board
>had no "engineering director" or anywhere else.

Perhaps that was their choice (albeit a rather poor one) as opposed to
something imposed by government?

>>>>>>  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.
>> Unless they are "too big to fail", or simply make slightly less
>>enormous profits as a result.
>>
>>>>> 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?
>> It was always a plc, and is prospering. Albeit with some possibly
>>needlessly frustrated engineering staff on the payroll.
>

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tvfk0n$obfi$2@dont-email.me>, at 19:13:27 on Wed, 22 Mar
> 2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>> On 22/03/2023 18:13, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <tv78h2$31uhd$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:08:16 on Sun, 19 Mar
>>> 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>  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.
>
>>> That split I can understand. But people seem to be saying that the
>>> damage was done not by such a two-way split, but a multiple-way split
>>> *within* each of those two camps.
>
>> The split took away engineering capability to the extent even the board
>> had no "engineering director" or anywhere else.
>
> Perhaps that was their choice (albeit a rather poor one) as opposed to
> something imposed by government?

There's no need to speculate. It wasn't a secret at the time, and is widely
documented, including in several posts in this thread. If you weren't
interested in the privatisation of BR at the time, it's easy to read up on
it now.

In message <lJc*lRWbz@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 10:34:23 on Thu,
23 Mar 2023, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:

>I'm guessing your client gives you a list of replies to your postings, and
>you feel the need to reply to them individually? That's... unusual. In
>most clients you only see the whole conversation and can drop back in when
>it suits you.

I remember now, I posted this in January:

http://www.perry.co.uk/images/ukr-threading.jpg

That's exactly what I see, typically when I log in of a morning.

Apropos of nothing at all, it shows (in that, expanded thread that day):

Two of mine hanging there
Conversations between mark and yourself+arthur
Bob replying to me and recliner
Roger replying to me and followed up by anna
Three recent parked postings from recliner
And from earlier, parked postings from recliner and certes.

Think of it like a conversation in a pub, you are having a natter with
some friends, other conversations all around; a new person walks in the
door. They ask something, you try to help. Meanwhile sat at the bar, an
old man yells at the clouds.

You divide your attention between all four, appropriately. But
especially when they address you specifically, or you overhear
something at the next table that's particularly awry.
--
Roland Perry

On 20/03/2023 07:19, Alan Lee 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/

I was there today, and had a rather lovely time behind a 9F, a Std. 5
and a DMU.
The loco shed, and signal boxes are now closed to the public due to H+S
and Insurance restrictions.
Back to the shed, it is expected to stay where it is, with the running
line take the western side of the shed. There used to be 2 sidings
running there a long time ago, they've measured up, and can fit 2 lines
in, but it may stay as one line until after the new viaducts/bridges, as
they are expected to be single line, at first, anyway, so no real need
to get 2 lines going past the shed. The shed is not being replaced at
the moment, money is not there, so it is to have a bit of a refurb at a
quarter of the cost, fixing the roof etc, moving stuff around so the new
line can be laid to the western side without interfering with the shed
requirements.
Coal supplies are a problem, currently they are getting it from a mine
(open cast?) in Wales, its price has tripled in 2 years. The commercial
arm is more important than ever, the Sunday dining train was fully
booked, thye run 2 Saturday night services, and various other dining
options, which are the best way for them to get money, I was told one
dining train takes more money on a typical Sunday than all the other
ticket income.
And back to the H+S, my OH rode in the cab of the DMU on one trip, most
impressed she was, but maybe the Driver and Mate were breaking the
Policy, as I cant see that being allowed by the Management.

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