On 20/04/2011 22:40, Jack Taylor wrote:

The standard of railway-related writing has, for some while, been
plummeting steadily lower and we often lambast the BBC for their
reporting

I though it was the pictures we hated?

but today's efforts in the London "Evening Standard" by their
Transport Correspondent, Dick Murray, are spectacularly dismal.

Whilst appreciating that there's a need not to baffle the general public
with too much technobabble, there really is no excuse for the following
load of tosh, from his article about Tuesday night's shambles on the
Jubilee line:

"Instead of using traffic lights trains are linked by radio waves which
'talk' to trackside responders. These in turn send a signal to a
computer in the train engine to speed up or stop."

Other than being electric multiple units (which normals wouldn't
understand) and so not having an "engine", isn't that more or less how
it works?

"One cut was to remove the reverse facility for trains. This means they
cannot circumvent any stranded carriages as they cannot be switched at
points to travel on the opposite track."

Have they? We might understand that UK trains don't generally run wrong
line, but in my experience normals don't. "Why can't we go round it"
must be quite a common question when things break, along with "why can't
another train push the broken one" and "why can't we just get off here,
it's not far".

"Last night's problem appears to be more straightforward, with a piece
of signal box falling off a carriage and on to the track,
short-circuiting the power."


Traffic lights, train engines (on the Underground!), pieces of signal
*box* falling off?

Perhaps it is aimed at a general audience, and assumes that people who
know that "signal box" has a specific meaning in a railway context will
be reading Modern Railways in WHS rather than the Evening Standard
(perhaps on a train which isn't officially "overground"...)?

What has the man been on?

Did he actually write the above phrases? Maybe someone re-wrote it to
delete anoraky stuff.

Anyway, the other day the BBC website had a pic showing what looked like
an IE loco and Enterprise stock on a story about a NIR domestic service,
so once I find my green biro I'm writing to tell them that if I had a
licence, I'd cancel it...

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 20/04/2011 23:15, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 20/04/2011 22:40, Jack Taylor wrote:

The standard of railway-related writing has, for some while, been
plummeting steadily lower and we often lambast the BBC for their
reporting

I though it was the pictures we hated?

Hey, I /like/ pictures of 4-VEPs.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Arthur Figgis wrote:

On 20/04/2011 22:40, Jack Taylor wrote:


"Instead of using traffic lights trains are linked by radio waves which
'talk' to trackside responders. These in turn send a signal to a
computer in the train engine to speed up or stop."

Other than being electric multiple units (which normals wouldn't
understand) and so not having an "engine", isn't that more or less how
it works?


What do mean, no engine? Unless the trains are pulled by horses, or
the passengers have to get out and push, there must be something -
some sort of mechanism or machinery - inside the train to make it
move. In other words, an "engine." How could it move without one?

On 21/04/2011 09:24, pippa.moran wrote:

Arthur Figgis wrote:

On 20/04/2011 22:40, Jack Taylor wrote:


"Instead of using traffic lights trains are linked by radio waves which
'talk' to trackside responders. These in turn send a signal to a
computer in the train engine to speed up or stop."

Other than being electric multiple units (which normals wouldn't
understand) and so not having an "engine", isn't that more or less how
it works?


What do mean, no engine? Unless the trains are pulled by horses, or
the passengers have to get out and push, there must be something -
some sort of mechanism or machinery - inside the train to make it
move. In other words, an "engine." How could it move without one?

Pedantically they have motors, not engines. The latter being those
nasty infernal combustion thingies. Motors run on nice clean electrickery.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 09:33:41 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
Pedantically they have motors, not engines. The latter being those
nasty infernal combustion thingies. Motors run on nice clean electrickery.

Tell that to Arthur Daley!

B2003

On 21/04/2011 09:58, d wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 09:33:41 +0100
Graeme wrote:
Pedantically they have motors, not engines. The latter being those
nasty infernal combustion thingies. Motors run on nice clean electrickery.

Tell that to Arthur Daley!


That's a mo'or me old china.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 21 Apr, 09:58, wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 09:33:41 +0100

Graeme Wall wrote:
Pedantically they have motors, not engines. *The latter being those
nasty infernal combustion thingies. *Motors run on nice clean electrickery.

Tell that to Arthur Daley!

B2003

To be even more pedantic, an engine generates power, while a motor
consumes power.

so a diesel engine generates power which goes to the traction motor.

But it doesn't have to be an electric motor. You can have hydraulic
motors to drive wheels.

And I've got a CO2 motor in a model plane somewhere as well as model
diesel engines.

What's the difference ? The CO2 motor is powered by a cylinder of
compressed gas and consumes external energy, while the diesel engines
are internal combustion.

While we're OT let's have a test of other interests. The diesel
engines include two Oliver Tigers. Does that mean anything to anyone
in this NG? No remarks about sad gits going in circles, please.

On 21/04/2011 15:58, Capt. Deltic wrote:
While we're OT let's have a test of other interests. The diesel
engines include two Oliver Tigers. Does that mean anything to anyone
in this NG? No remarks about sad gits going in circles, please.

Dredging my memory, isn't that a very old model aircraft engine?

From another sad git.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 21 Apr, 17:36, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 21/04/2011 15:58, Capt. Deltic wrote:

While we're OT let's have a test of other interests. The diesel
engines include two Oliver Tigers. *Does that mean anything to anyone
in this NG? *No remarks about sad gits going in circles, please.

Dredging my memory, isn't that a very old model aircraft engine?

*From another sad git.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Thanks for confirming my general exoperience that however recherche
the topic, someone on UKR will iknow about it.

Indeed, diesel engines hand made by Mr John Oliver. Which somehow
combined easy starting, good 'throttleability' with lots of power.

not to be confused with the Italian Super Tigre (got one of those
too?.

Death to glow-plugs.

roger

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Capt. Deltic wrote:

On 21 Apr, 09:58, wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 09:33:41 +0100

Graeme Wall wrote:
Pedantically they have motors, not engines. *The latter being those
nasty infernal combustion thingies. *Motors run on nice clean electrickery.

Tell that to Arthur Daley!

To be even more pedantic, an engine generates power, while a motor
consumes power.

What? *What*?

'Generates' power? 'Consumes' power? Has that small matter called the
first law of thermodynamics passed you by?

All any of these devices do is convert energy from one form to another.
They might be coupled to devices capable of storing energy. But whenever
they are in operation, the flows of energy in and out are equal; not all
of the energy coming out will be useful, but it's there. A flow of energy
is power, and so all these devices do is convert power from one form to
another.

An electric motor converts electrical power to mechanical power. An
internal combustion engine converts chemical power - a flow of constant
mass in which the output has a lower chemical potential than the input -
into mechanical power. An external combustion engine - if you were
inclined to exclude the boiler - converts pressure power (which can't be
the right name - aerostatic power?) into mechanical power. They're all
just power converters.

Calling one an engine and one a motor is a matter of convention. It's
preposterous to ascribe a fundamental meaning to the distinction.

tom

--
Eight-bit is forever