Almost like a fairground ride

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9L9cSYE1W4

Probably wouldn't happen here, HSE would wet their nappies.

On 16/06/2023 17:07:47, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> Almost like a fairground ride
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9L9cSYE1W4
>
> Probably wouldn't happen here, HSE would wet their nappies.

even a working model of it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6QR3lrzOo4

--
mick

On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:07:47 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>Almost like a fairground ride
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9L9cSYE1W4
>
>Probably wouldn't happen here, HSE would wet their nappies.
>
There is nothing new about the tippler arrangement. As for the rest,
you just make sure you have effective separation of loose wagons and
humans.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote in message
news:u6i1cj$safu$1@dont-email.me...
> Almost like a fairground ride
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9L9cSYE1W4
>
> Probably wouldn't happen here, HSE would wet their nappies.

Whenever I think of coal, I think of that wonderful quote from the brilliant
film "Brassed Off":

Phil: I'm a miner.
Mother 2: [incredulously] A miner?
Phil: You remember them, love? Dinosaurs, dodos, miners.

A few years from now, the denialists which have taken offence with the
concept that coal was *ever* mined and burned, and will have removed the
words "coal" and "miner" from dictionaries and will have destroyed all
records of the industry which made Britain great.

On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 18:00:22 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:07:47 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>wrote:
>
>>Almost like a fairground ride
>>
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9L9cSYE1W4
>>
>>Probably wouldn't happen here, HSE would wet their nappies.
>>
>There is nothing new about the tippler arrangement. As for the rest,
>you just make sure you have effective separation of loose wagons and
>humans.

There's pretty good separation of humans and 3rd rail in the UK but that
hasn't stopped the bed wetters banning any new installations.

On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 21:14:35 +0100
"NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote in message
>news:u6i1cj$safu$1@dont-email.me...
>> Almost like a fairground ride
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9L9cSYE1W4
>>
>> Probably wouldn't happen here, HSE would wet their nappies.
>
>
>Whenever I think of coal, I think of that wonderful quote from the brilliant
>film "Brassed Off":
>
>Phil: I'm a miner.
>Mother 2: [incredulously] A miner?
>Phil: You remember them, love? Dinosaurs, dodos, miners.
>
>A few years from now, the denialists which have taken offence with the
>concept that coal was *ever* mined and burned, and will have removed the
>words "coal" and "miner" from dictionaries and will have destroyed all
>records of the industry which made Britain great.

Plenty of countries had coal, it was our ingenuity that created the industrial
revolution. The right people in the right circumstances at the right time.

On 17.06.23 11:07, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 21:14:35 +0100
> "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote in message
>> news:u6i1cj$safu$1@dont-email.me...
>>> Almost like a fairground ride
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9L9cSYE1W4
>>>
>>> Probably wouldn't happen here, HSE would wet their nappies.
>>
>>
>> Whenever I think of coal, I think of that wonderful quote from the brilliant
>> film "Brassed Off":
>>
>> Phil: I'm a miner.
>> Mother 2: [incredulously] A miner?
>> Phil: You remember them, love? Dinosaurs, dodos, miners.
>>
>> A few years from now, the denialists which have taken offence with the
>> concept that coal was *ever* mined and burned, and will have removed the
>> words "coal" and "miner" from dictionaries and will have destroyed all
>> records of the industry which made Britain great.
>
> Plenty of countries had coal, it was our ingenuity that created the industrial
> revolution. The right people in the right circumstances at the right time.

There was also a huge lump of geography in there. Being an island,
Britain could afford to not spend money on a large army and could keep
war away from the island. It also has unusually easy to access a variety
of important mineral resources (in particular mineral ores). All the
ingenuity in the world is of no value if a marauding foreign army
marches through and razes your factory, and is of no value if there
isn't capital available to actually build with.

Robin

On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 11:54:23 +0200
Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>On 17.06.23 11:07, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 21:14:35 +0100
>> "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote in message
>>> news:u6i1cj$safu$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> Almost like a fairground ride
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9L9cSYE1W4
>>>>
>>>> Probably wouldn't happen here, HSE would wet their nappies.
>>>
>>>
>>> Whenever I think of coal, I think of that wonderful quote from the brilliant
>
>>> film "Brassed Off":
>>>
>>> Phil: I'm a miner.
>>> Mother 2: [incredulously] A miner?
>>> Phil: You remember them, love? Dinosaurs, dodos, miners.
>>>
>>> A few years from now, the denialists which have taken offence with the
>>> concept that coal was *ever* mined and burned, and will have removed the
>>> words "coal" and "miner" from dictionaries and will have destroyed all
>>> records of the industry which made Britain great.
>>
>> Plenty of countries had coal, it was our ingenuity that created the
>industrial
>> revolution. The right people in the right circumstances at the right time.
>
>There was also a huge lump of geography in there. Being an island,
>Britain could afford to not spend money on a large army and could keep
>war away from the island. It also has unusually easy to access a variety

We had a large navy to pay for instead to do just that.

>of important mineral resources (in particular mineral ores). All the

And the rest of Europe didn't?

>ingenuity in the world is of no value if a marauding foreign army
>marches through and razes your factory, and is of no value if there

Didn't stop the romans, vikings or normans.

On 17.06.23 12:31, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 11:54:23 +0200
> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 17.06.23 11:07, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 21:14:35 +0100
>>> "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:u6i1cj$safu$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>> Almost like a fairground ride
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9L9cSYE1W4
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably wouldn't happen here, HSE would wet their nappies.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Whenever I think of coal, I think of that wonderful quote from the brilliant
>>
>>>> film "Brassed Off":
>>>>
>>>> Phil: I'm a miner.
>>>> Mother 2: [incredulously] A miner?
>>>> Phil: You remember them, love? Dinosaurs, dodos, miners.
>>>>
>>>> A few years from now, the denialists which have taken offence with the
>>>> concept that coal was *ever* mined and burned, and will have removed the
>>>> words "coal" and "miner" from dictionaries and will have destroyed all
>>>> records of the industry which made Britain great.
>>>
>>> Plenty of countries had coal, it was our ingenuity that created the
>> industrial
>>> revolution. The right people in the right circumstances at the right time.
>>
>> There was also a huge lump of geography in there. Being an island,
>> Britain could afford to not spend money on a large army and could keep
>> war away from the island. It also has unusually easy to access a variety
>
> We had a large navy to pay for instead to do just that.
>
>> of important mineral resources (in particular mineral ores). All the
>
> And the rest of Europe didn't?

In agregate, yes, but generally the easy to access deposits are more
dispersed, meaning transportation was a more significant challenge than
in Britain.

>> ingenuity in the world is of no value if a marauding foreign army
>> marches through and razes your factory, and is of no value if there
>
> Didn't stop the romans, vikings or normans.

Britain wasn't a unified country at that ponit, so the various political
entities were competing amongst one another rather than able to dedicate
their resources to collectively defending the island.

Robin

On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 15:22:09 +0200
Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>On 17.06.23 12:31, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> of important mineral resources (in particular mineral ores). All the
>>
>> And the rest of Europe didn't?
>
>In agregate, yes, but generally the easy to access deposits are more
>dispersed, meaning transportation was a more significant challenge than
>in Britain.

The Germans might disagree with you.

>>> ingenuity in the world is of no value if a marauding foreign army
>>> marches through and razes your factory, and is of no value if there
>>
>> Didn't stop the romans, vikings or normans.
>
>Britain wasn't a unified country at that ponit, so the various political

It was when the normans turned up. Anyway, point is an island isn't secure
if you don't have enough ships to defend it.

On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 09:04:29 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 18:00:22 +0100
>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:07:47 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Almost like a fairground ride
>>>
>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9L9cSYE1W4
>>>
>>>Probably wouldn't happen here, HSE would wet their nappies.
>>>
>>There is nothing new about the tippler arrangement. As for the rest,
>>you just make sure you have effective separation of loose wagons and
>>humans.
>
>There's pretty good separation of humans and 3rd rail in the UK but that
>hasn't stopped the bed wetters banning any new installations.
>
That is mainly because there is a better way of feeding juice to
trains along with the less better way of under-running protected
conductor rail. With common availability of dual-voltage (actual or
potential) trains there is even less reason to use conductor rails on
extensions and more reason to use AC if a line requires mass
replacement of life-expired electrics. The main decider now might be
the available clearances.

On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 17:10:38 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 09:04:29 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>wrote:
>>There's pretty good separation of humans and 3rd rail in the UK but that
>>hasn't stopped the bed wetters banning any new installations.
>>
>That is mainly because there is a better way of feeding juice to
>trains along with the less better way of under-running protected
>conductor rail. With common availability of dual-voltage (actual or
>potential) trains there is even less reason to use conductor rails on
>extensions and more reason to use AC if a line requires mass
>replacement of life-expired electrics. The main decider now might be
>the available clearances.

Depends on your definition of "better" doesn't it. AC overhead is ugly and
requires huge expensive infrastructure work if the loading gauge isn't large
enough. Plus dual voltage trains cost more than single. Pantographs and
transformers arn't cheap.

On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 15:22:54 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 15:22:09 +0200
>Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>On 17.06.23 12:31, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> of important mineral resources (in particular mineral ores). All the
>>>
>>> And the rest of Europe didn't?
>>
>>In agregate, yes, but generally the easy to access deposits are more
>>dispersed, meaning transportation was a more significant challenge than
>>in Britain.
>
>The Germans might disagree with you.
>
>>>> ingenuity in the world is of no value if a marauding foreign army
>>>> marches through and razes your factory, and is of no value if there
>>>
>>> Didn't stop the romans, vikings or normans.
>>
>>Britain wasn't a unified country at that ponit, so the various political
>
>It was when the normans turned up.
>
It wasn't. When the Normans turned up there several countries. At no
time has there been a single country (rather than a single --state) on
the island.

>Anyway, point is an island isn't secure
>if you don't have enough ships to defend it.
>
Ships can't fly.

On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 16:21:03 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 17:10:38 +0100
>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 09:04:29 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>wrote:
>>>There's pretty good separation of humans and 3rd rail in the UK but that
>>>hasn't stopped the bed wetters banning any new installations.
>>>
>>That is mainly because there is a better way of feeding juice to
>>trains along with the less better way of under-running protected
>>conductor rail. With common availability of dual-voltage (actual or
>>potential) trains there is even less reason to use conductor rails on
>>extensions and more reason to use AC if a line requires mass
>>replacement of life-expired electrics. The main decider now might be
>>the available clearances.
>
>Depends on your definition of "better" doesn't it. AC overhead is ugly
>
Railways are a form of transport not an expression of art. As has been
demonstrated in many places, OHLE design can be varied to be less
obtrusive when wanted.

>and
>requires huge expensive infrastructure work if the loading gauge isn't large
>enough.
>
Loading gauge restrictions tend to be a localised problem.

>Plus dual voltage trains cost more than single. Pantographs and
>transformers arn't cheap.
>
Pantographs and transformers are just add-ons for trains built to
allow their future fitting. DC electrification is inefficient both
financially and in use of energy (where it is also less able to supply
high power).

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 16:21:03 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 17:10:38 +0100
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 09:04:29 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>> wrote:
>>>> There's pretty good separation of humans and 3rd rail in the UK but that
>>>> hasn't stopped the bed wetters banning any new installations.
>>>>
>>> That is mainly because there is a better way of feeding juice to
>>> trains along with the less better way of under-running protected
>>> conductor rail. With common availability of dual-voltage (actual or
>>> potential) trains there is even less reason to use conductor rails on
>>> extensions and more reason to use AC if a line requires mass
>>> replacement of life-expired electrics. The main decider now might be
>>> the available clearances.
>>
>> Depends on your definition of "better" doesn't it. AC overhead is ugly
>>
> Railways are a form of transport not an expression of art. As has been
> demonstrated in many places, OHLE design can be varied to be less
> obtrusive when wanted.
>
>> and
>> requires huge expensive infrastructure work if the loading gauge isn't large
>> enough.
>>
> Loading gauge restrictions tend to be a localised problem.
>
>> Plus dual voltage trains cost more than single. Pantographs and
>> transformers arn't cheap.
>>
> Pantographs and transformers are just add-ons for trains built to
> allow their future fitting. DC electrification is inefficient both
> financially and in use of energy (where it is also less able to supply
> high power).
>

Or work with fast trains. It's mostly used for metro trains with speeds no
higher than 150 km/h.

On 17.06.23 17:22, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 15:22:09 +0200
> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 17.06.23 12:31, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> of important mineral resources (in particular mineral ores). All the
>>>
>>> And the rest of Europe didn't?
>>
>> In agregate, yes, but generally the easy to access deposits are more
>> dispersed, meaning transportation was a more significant challenge than
>> in Britain.
>
> The Germans might disagree with you.

Germany doesn't have much in the way of accessible iron ore deposits.
The iron and steel industry in Germany was very much dependent on ores
mined in other countries.

Robin

On 17.06.23 18:21, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 17:10:38 +0100
> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 09:04:29 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>> wrote:
>>> There's pretty good separation of humans and 3rd rail in the UK but that
>>> hasn't stopped the bed wetters banning any new installations.
>>>
>> That is mainly because there is a better way of feeding juice to
>> trains along with the less better way of under-running protected
>> conductor rail. With common availability of dual-voltage (actual or
>> potential) trains there is even less reason to use conductor rails on
>> extensions and more reason to use AC if a line requires mass
>> replacement of life-expired electrics. The main decider now might be
>> the available clearances.
>
> Depends on your definition of "better" doesn't it. AC overhead is ugly and
> requires huge expensive infrastructure work if the loading gauge isn't large
> enough. Plus dual voltage trains cost more than single. Pantographs and
> transformers arn't cheap.

The need for frequent substations on low voltage power supplies for 3rd
rail (necessary due to restricted clearance available), and the
supporting infrastructure to get power to the substations, makes 3rd
rail significantly more expensive in overall cost.

Robin

On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 17:26:00 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 15:22:54 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 15:22:09 +0200
>>Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>On 17.06.23 12:31, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> of important mineral resources (in particular mineral ores). All the
>>>>
>>>> And the rest of Europe didn't?
>>>
>>>In agregate, yes, but generally the easy to access deposits are more
>>>dispersed, meaning transportation was a more significant challenge than
>>>in Britain.
>>
>>The Germans might disagree with you.
>>
>>>>> ingenuity in the world is of no value if a marauding foreign army
>>>>> marches through and razes your factory, and is of no value if there
>>>>
>>>> Didn't stop the romans, vikings or normans.
>>>
>>>Britain wasn't a unified country at that ponit, so the various political
>>
>>It was when the normans turned up.
>>
>It wasn't. When the Normans turned up there several countries. At no
>time has there been a single country (rather than a single --state) on
>the island.

England existed when the normans invaded. I suggest you revisit your school
history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%86thelstan

>>Anyway, point is an island isn't secure
>>if you don't have enough ships to defend it.
>>
>Ships can't fly.

The normans had aircraft? Didn't know that.

On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 17:43:30 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 16:21:03 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 17:10:38 +0100
>>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 09:04:29 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>wrote:
>>>>There's pretty good separation of humans and 3rd rail in the UK but that
>>>>hasn't stopped the bed wetters banning any new installations.
>>>>
>>>That is mainly because there is a better way of feeding juice to
>>>trains along with the less better way of under-running protected
>>>conductor rail. With common availability of dual-voltage (actual or
>>>potential) trains there is even less reason to use conductor rails on
>>>extensions and more reason to use AC if a line requires mass
>>>replacement of life-expired electrics. The main decider now might be
>>>the available clearances.
>>
>>Depends on your definition of "better" doesn't it. AC overhead is ugly
>>
>Railways are a form of transport not an expression of art. As has been

Neither are motorways but not many people would want one nearby.

>demonstrated in many places, OHLE design can be varied to be less
>obtrusive when wanted.

Good luck making it as unobtrusive as 3rd rail.

>>requires huge expensive infrastructure work if the loading gauge isn't large
>>enough.
>>
>Loading gauge restrictions tend to be a localised problem.

Enlarging tunnels, raising bridges and station canopies might be localised but
its also bloody expensive.

>>Plus dual voltage trains cost more than single. Pantographs and
>>transformers arn't cheap.
>>
>Pantographs and transformers are just add-ons for trains built to
>allow their future fitting. DC electrification is inefficient both
>financially and in use of energy (where it is also less able to supply
>high power).

Not as inefficient as diesel.

On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 11:22:57 +0200
Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>On 17.06.23 18:21, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 17:10:38 +0100
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 09:04:29 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>> wrote:
>>>> There's pretty good separation of humans and 3rd rail in the UK but that
>>>> hasn't stopped the bed wetters banning any new installations.
>>>>
>>> That is mainly because there is a better way of feeding juice to
>>> trains along with the less better way of under-running protected
>>> conductor rail. With common availability of dual-voltage (actual or
>>> potential) trains there is even less reason to use conductor rails on
>>> extensions and more reason to use AC if a line requires mass
>>> replacement of life-expired electrics. The main decider now might be
>>> the available clearances.
>>
>> Depends on your definition of "better" doesn't it. AC overhead is ugly and
>> requires huge expensive infrastructure work if the loading gauge isn't large
>> enough. Plus dual voltage trains cost more than single. Pantographs and
>> transformers arn't cheap.
>
>The need for frequent substations on low voltage power supplies for 3rd
>rail (necessary due to restricted clearance available), and the
>supporting infrastructure to get power to the substations, makes 3rd
>rail significantly more expensive in overall cost.

Got any figures for that?

For short branch lines you'd probably only need 1 or 2 substations which would
be the same for AC plus you'd save on the the knitting and gantries.

On 18.06.23 17:16, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 11:22:57 +0200
> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 17.06.23 18:21, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 17:10:38 +0100
>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 09:04:29 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> There's pretty good separation of humans and 3rd rail in the UK but that
>>>>> hasn't stopped the bed wetters banning any new installations.
>>>>>
>>>> That is mainly because there is a better way of feeding juice to
>>>> trains along with the less better way of under-running protected
>>>> conductor rail. With common availability of dual-voltage (actual or
>>>> potential) trains there is even less reason to use conductor rails on
>>>> extensions and more reason to use AC if a line requires mass
>>>> replacement of life-expired electrics. The main decider now might be
>>>> the available clearances.
>>>
>>> Depends on your definition of "better" doesn't it. AC overhead is ugly and
>>> requires huge expensive infrastructure work if the loading gauge isn't large
>>> enough. Plus dual voltage trains cost more than single. Pantographs and
>>> transformers arn't cheap.
>>
>> The need for frequent substations on low voltage power supplies for 3rd
>> rail (necessary due to restricted clearance available), and the
>> supporting infrastructure to get power to the substations, makes 3rd
>> rail significantly more expensive in overall cost.
>
> Got any figures for that?
>
> For short branch lines you'd probably only need 1 or 2 substations which would
> be the same for AC plus you'd save on the the knitting and gantries.

AC can get a long way without substations. For example when the line to
King's Lynn was wired, the only supply was from the Cambridge end, with
the whole line through Ely to King's Lynn being fed from only one end.

On the 3rd rail you need a substation around every 3 miles. For 25 kV
it's more like 30, so a factor of 10. Substations on the 25 kV network
are also simpler because there is no rectification involved (though
there is an issue of balancing phases as the rail traction supply is
single phase, coming of the 3 phase grid).

Robin

On 18.06.23 17:08, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 17:26:00 +0100
> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 15:22:54 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 15:22:09 +0200
>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>> On 17.06.23 12:31, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>> of important mineral resources (in particular mineral ores). All the
>>>>>
>>>>> And the rest of Europe didn't?
>>>>
>>>> In agregate, yes, but generally the easy to access deposits are more
>>>> dispersed, meaning transportation was a more significant challenge than
>>>> in Britain.
>>>
>>> The Germans might disagree with you.
>>>
>>>>>> ingenuity in the world is of no value if a marauding foreign army
>>>>>> marches through and razes your factory, and is of no value if there
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't stop the romans, vikings or normans.
>>>>
>>>> Britain wasn't a unified country at that ponit, so the various political
>>>
>>> It was when the normans turned up.
>>>
>> It wasn't. When the Normans turned up there several countries. At no
>> time has there been a single country (rather than a single --state) on
>> the island.
>
> England existed when the normans invaded.

So did Scotland and Wales.

> I suggest you revisit your school history.

You may wish to revisit your school geography.

Robin

On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 15:08:09 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 17:26:00 +0100
>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 15:22:54 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 15:22:09 +0200
>>>Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>On 17.06.23 12:31, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>> of important mineral resources (in particular mineral ores). All the
>>>>>
>>>>> And the rest of Europe didn't?
>>>>
>>>>In agregate, yes, but generally the easy to access deposits are more
>>>>dispersed, meaning transportation was a more significant challenge than
>>>>in Britain.
>>>
>>>The Germans might disagree with you.
>>>
>>>>>> ingenuity in the world is of no value if a marauding foreign army
>>>>>> marches through and razes your factory, and is of no value if there
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't stop the romans, vikings or normans.
>>>>
>>>>Britain wasn't a unified country at that ponit, so the various political
>>>
>>>It was when the normans turned up.
>>>
>>It wasn't. When the Normans turned up there several countries. At no
>>time has there been a single country (rather than a single --state) on
>>the island.
>
>England existed when the normans invaded. I suggest you revisit your school
>history.
>
England existed as did the other countries on the island of Great
Britain. I suggest you learn the difference between England/UK/GB.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%86thelstan
>
>
>>>Anyway, point is an island isn't secure
>>>if you don't have enough ships to defend it.
>>>
>>Ships can't fly.
>
>The normans had aircraft? Didn't know that.
>
Was there a Norman Air Force in Big Mistake 2 ? That was some time
after 1066.

In message <u6nbop$1mr84$2@dont-email.me>, at 18:35:37 on Sun, 18 Jun
2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>On 18.06.23 17:16, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 11:22:57 +0200
>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>> On 17.06.23 18:21, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 17:10:38 +0100
>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 09:04:29 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> There's pretty good separation of humans and 3rd rail in the UK but that
>>>>>> hasn't stopped the bed wetters banning any new installations.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That is mainly because there is a better way of feeding juice to
>>>>> trains along with the less better way of under-running protected
>>>>> conductor rail. With common availability of dual-voltage (actual or
>>>>> potential) trains there is even less reason to use conductor rails on
>>>>> extensions and more reason to use AC if a line requires mass
>>>>> replacement of life-expired electrics. The main decider now might be
>>>>> the available clearances.
>>>>
>>>> Depends on your definition of "better" doesn't it. AC overhead is ugly and
>>>> requires huge expensive infrastructure work if the loading gauge
>>>>isn't large
>>>> enough. Plus dual voltage trains cost more than single. Pantographs and
>>>> transformers arn't cheap.
>>>
>>> The need for frequent substations on low voltage power supplies for 3rd
>>> rail (necessary due to restricted clearance available), and the
>>> supporting infrastructure to get power to the substations, makes 3rd
>>> rail significantly more expensive in overall cost.

>> Got any figures for that?

>> For short branch lines you'd probably only need 1 or 2 substations
>>which would be the same for AC plus you'd save on the the knitting
>>and gantries.
>
>AC can get a long way without substations. For example when the line to
>King's Lynn was wired, the only supply was from the Cambridge end, with
>the whole line through Ely to King's Lynn being fed from only one end.

I don't think that's the case, because there's a neutral section at
Littleport. So it was fed from both ends, but critically, not also from
the middle.
--
Roland Perry

On 18.06.23 20:22, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <u6nbop$1mr84$2@dont-email.me>, at 18:35:37 on Sun, 18 Jun
> 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>> On 18.06.23 17:16, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 11:22:57 +0200
>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>> On 17.06.23 18:21, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 17:10:38 +0100
>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 09:04:29 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> There's pretty good separation of humans and 3rd rail in the UK
>>>>>>> but that
>>>>>>> hasn't stopped the bed wetters banning any new installations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is mainly because there is a better way of feeding juice to
>>>>>> trains along with the less better way of under-running protected
>>>>>> conductor rail. With common availability of dual-voltage (actual or
>>>>>> potential) trains there is even less reason to use conductor rails on
>>>>>> extensions and more reason to use AC if a line requires mass
>>>>>> replacement of life-expired electrics. The main decider now might be
>>>>>> the available clearances.
>>>>>
>>>>> Depends on your definition of "better" doesn't it. AC overhead is
>>>>> ugly and
>>>>> requires huge expensive infrastructure work if the loading gauge
>>>>> isn't large
>>>>> enough. Plus dual voltage trains cost more than single. Pantographs
>>>>> and
>>>>> transformers arn't cheap.
>>>>
>>>> The need for frequent substations on low voltage power supplies for 3rd
>>>> rail (necessary due to restricted clearance available), and the
>>>> supporting infrastructure to get power to the substations, makes 3rd
>>>> rail significantly more expensive in overall cost.
>
>>>  Got any figures for that?
>
>>>  For short branch lines you'd probably only need 1 or 2 substations
>>> which would  be the same for AC plus you'd save on the the knitting
>>> and gantries.
>>
>> AC can get a long way without substations. For example when the line
>> to King's Lynn was wired, the only supply was from the Cambridge end,
>> with the whole line through Ely to King's Lynn being fed from only one
>> end.
>
> I don't think that's the case, because there's a neutral section at
> Littleport. So it was fed from both ends, but critically, not also from
> the middle.

Yes, it was upgraded because the old arrangement imposed a limit on the
number of units that could be in the section at any time. The new feeder
at Littleport lifted that restriction.

Robin