|
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
The standard of railway-related writing has, for some while, been plummeting
steadily lower and we often lambast the BBC for their reporting 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." "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." "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? What has the man been on? |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
On Apr 20, 10:40*pm, "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 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." "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." "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? What has the man been on? Yes, it was indeed truly execrable. It would be fascinating to know what actually happened, but no danger of that from reading the Standard, which yet again gas been found to be journalistically very sub-Standard. RPM |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
"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 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." "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." "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? What has the man been on? I share your concern about the plummeting standards of journalism. However, there have always been problems when non-technical journalists - whose education and training has mostly excluded any mention of technology - write about technical matters. The Evening Standard article you quoted is certainly no worse than many other articles about technology by non-technical journalists. However, some of the worst standards of "journalism" are to be found on this newsgroup when contributors post messages about technology (other than rail) that they know less than nothing about. |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
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 |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
On Apr 20, 11:08*pm, RPM wrote:
On Apr 20, 10:40*pm, "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 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." "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." "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? What has the man been on? Yes, it was indeed truly execrable. It would be fascinating to know what actually happened, but no danger of that from reading the Standard, which yet again gas been found to be journalistically very sub-Standard. RPM Have a look here http://districtdave.proboards.com/in...?board=jubilee for what really happened, though there is a bit of jargon, The Other Tony in Walsall |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
On 21/04/2011 08:02, tony wrote:
On Apr 20, 11:08 pm, wrote: On Apr 20, 10:40 pm, "Jack wrote: The standard of railway-related writing has, for some while, been plummeting steadily lower and we often lambast the BBC for their reporting 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." "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." "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? What has the man been on? Yes, it was indeed truly execrable. It would be fascinating to know what actually happened, but no danger of that from reading the Standard, which yet again gas been found to be journalistically very sub-Standard. RPM Have a look here http://districtdave.proboards.com/in...?board=jubilee for what really happened, though there is a bit of jargon, I hadn't looked at that site for a while. the first item reads: It is with great sadness that we have to announce that Dave Maloney, known to us all as "District Dave" and the first founder of this site, passed away peacefully at his home this morning following several months illness. RIP. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
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 |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
In message , at 08:24:16 on Thu, 21
Apr 2011, Graeme Wall remarked: Have a look here http://districtdave.proboards.com/in...?board=jubilee for what really happened, though there is a bit of jargon, I hadn't looked at that site for a while. the first item reads: It is with great sadness that we have to announce that Dave Maloney, known to us all as "District Dave" and the first founder of this site, passed away peacefully at his home this morning following several months illness. Dated a little over a month ago. I'm sure it was reported here, or was it utl? -- Roland Perry |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
On 21/04/2011 08:35, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:24:16 on Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Graeme Wall remarked: Have a look here http://districtdave.proboards.com/in...?board=jubilee for what really happened, though there is a bit of jargon, I hadn't looked at that site for a while. the first item reads: It is with great sadness that we have to announce that Dave Maloney, known to us all as "District Dave" and the first founder of this site, passed away peacefully at his home this morning following several months illness. Dated a little over a month ago. I'm sure it was reported here, or was it utl? The latter probably, I'm not subscribed to utl. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
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? |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
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? |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
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 |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
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 |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
On 21/04/2011 09:33, Graeme Wall wrote:
Pedantically they have motors, not engines. The latter being those nasty infernal combustion thingies. Motors run on nice clean electrickery. Doubly pedantically, a motor *is* an engine (an engine isn't always a motor, though, cf siege engine, difference engine, database engine...) Cheers mark-r |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
Mark Robinson wrote:
On 21/04/2011 09:33, Graeme Wall wrote: Pedantically they have motors, not engines. The latter being those nasty infernal combustion thingies. Motors run on nice clean electrickery. Doubly pedantically, a motor *is* an engine (an engine isn't always a motor, though, cf siege engine, difference engine, database engine...) No. The use of "engine" for electric motor is unheard of. Technically it may be called a "machine". Calling a motor an engine is as daft as calling a cl. 45 Peak a hexadecimalcycle. -- Peter 'Prof' Fox Multitude of things for beer, cycling and curiosities at www.vulpeculox.net |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:47:21 +0100, Mark Robinson wrote:
On 21/04/2011 09:33, Graeme Wall wrote: Pedantically they have motors, not engines. The latter being those nasty infernal combustion thingies. Motors run on nice clean electrickery. Um. No. "Petrol motor" or "steam motor" are both perfectly acceptable terms within the railway context (both terms having been used by railways..) - "diesel motor" was rarer, but not unknown. Some steam motors: http://www.aqpl43.dsl.pipex.com/MUSE.../steamotor.htm These, of course, are "steam motor" for the actual working gubbins. "Motor" was also used by railways to describe entire trains - steam railcars were more normally known as "motor cars" during their heyday, and "motor trains" could be steam (or electric, or petrol, or diesel) powered.. Doubly pedantically, a motor *is* an engine (an engine isn't always a motor, though, cf siege engine, difference engine, database engine...) And, to complicate things further, a Victorian (or earlier) engineer would have referred to each cylinder of a steam or gas engine as an "engine". If you read contemporary accounts of the design of early locomotives you'll find considerable attention paid to the way the two engines in the locomotive were linked. A modest example might be: "this scetch will shew you my Ideas in the way I would combin the tow engines to gether" (G. Stephenson, introducing his design for what eventually became "Locomotion") -- From the Model M of Andy Breen, speaking only for himself |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
|
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
On 21/04/2011 10:47, Mark Robinson wrote:
On 21/04/2011 09:33, Graeme Wall wrote: Pedantically they have motors, not engines. The latter being those nasty infernal combustion thingies. Motors run on nice clean electrickery. Doubly pedantically, a motor *is* an engine (an engine isn't always a motor, though, cf siege engine, difference engine, database engine...) Cheers mark-r **gger, out-pedanted :-) -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
On 21/04/2011 11:04, Andy Breen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:47:21 +0100, Mark Robinson wrote: On 21/04/2011 09:33, Graeme Wall wrote: Pedantically they have motors, not engines. The latter being those nasty infernal combustion thingies. Motors run on nice clean electrickery. Um. No. "Petrol motor" or "steam motor" are both perfectly acceptable terms within the railway context (both terms having been used by railways..) - "diesel motor" was rarer, but not unknown. Steam motor actually makes sense in the context I was using as it is an external combustion engine, as is an electric motor. An analogy that breaks down as soon as you introduce hydro/wind/tidal power into the equation :-) -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:25:50 +0100, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 21/04/2011 11:04, Andy Breen wrote: On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:47:21 +0100, Mark Robinson wrote: On 21/04/2011 09:33, Graeme Wall wrote: Pedantically they have motors, not engines. The latter being those nasty infernal combustion thingies. Motors run on nice clean electrickery. Um. No. "Petrol motor" or "steam motor" are both perfectly acceptable terms within the railway context (both terms having been used by railways..) - "diesel motor" was rarer, but not unknown. Steam motor actually makes sense in the context I was using as it is an external combustion engine, as is an electric motor. An analogy that breaks down as soon as you introduce hydro/wind/tidal power into the equation :-) Isn't a water turbine a hydraulic engine? ;-) But yes, I understand your point.. -- From the Model M of Andy Breen, speaking only for himself |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
Peter Fox wrote in
: The use of "engine" for electric motor is unheard of. What about winding engines in mines? I can see this thread running for ever. Peter -- || Peter CS | Epsom | UK || |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
On 21/04/2011 11:32, Andy Breen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:25:50 +0100, Graeme Wall wrote: On 21/04/2011 11:04, Andy Breen wrote: On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:47:21 +0100, Mark Robinson wrote: On 21/04/2011 09:33, Graeme Wall wrote: Pedantically they have motors, not engines. The latter being those nasty infernal combustion thingies. Motors run on nice clean electrickery. Um. No. "Petrol motor" or "steam motor" are both perfectly acceptable terms within the railway context (both terms having been used by railways..) - "diesel motor" was rarer, but not unknown. Steam motor actually makes sense in the context I was using as it is an external combustion engine, as is an electric motor. An analogy that breaks down as soon as you introduce hydro/wind/tidal power into the equation :-) Isn't a water turbine a hydraulic engine? ;-) Told you the analogy broke down when you introduced water, it stops the combustion... But yes, I understand your point.. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
On 21/04/2011 12:02, Peter Campbell Smith wrote:
Peter wrote in : The use of "engine" for electric motor is unheard of. What about winding engines in mines? Were they not originally steam engines? -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:50:46 +0100, Graeme Wall wrote
On 21/04/2011 12:02, Peter Campbell Smith wrote: Peter wrote in : The use of "engine" for electric motor is unheard of. What about winding engines in mines? Were they not originally steam engines? Originally horse or treadmill powered. |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
On 21/04/2011 13:31, Stimpy wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:50:46 +0100, Graeme Wall wrote On 21/04/2011 12:02, Peter Campbell Smith wrote: Peter wrote in : The use of "engine" for electric motor is unheard of. What about winding engines in mines? Were they not originally steam engines? Originally horse or treadmill powered. Of course. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:49:14 +0100, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 21/04/2011 11:32, Andy Breen wrote: On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:25:50 +0100, Graeme Wall wrote: On 21/04/2011 11:04, Andy Breen wrote: Steam motor actually makes sense in the context I was using as it is an external combustion engine, as is an electric motor. An analogy that breaks down as soon as you introduce hydro/wind/tidal power into the equation :-) Isn't a water turbine a hydraulic engine? ;-) Told you the analogy broke down when you introduced water, it stops the combustion... Not always. You can get a significant power boost by injecting a fine mist of water into the air intake of an otto-cycle engine (it cools the fuel/air mix, increasing its density and thus the amount of mix delivered to the cylinder). Water injection was a hardy perrennial in aero-engines in the piston-engined days, either for emergency power boost or for take- off. Also used by the drag-racing boys, of course.. Actually, on reflection, you can use it with diesels too, as a way of cooling the air charge (after, I think , compression by the supercharger) and allowing more fuel to be injected per stroke. The Napier Nomad used water injection for power boost.. ;-) -- Andy Breen, not speaking on behalf of Aberystwyth University "The internet, that wonderful tool for bringing us into contact with things that make us wish we could scrub our brains out with dental floss.." (Charlie Stross) |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:02:22 +0000, Peter Campbell Smith wrote:
Peter Fox wrote in : The use of "engine" for electric motor is unheard of. What about winding engines in mines? I can see this thread running for ever. The hauler on the incline on the Bowes Railway is electric, and that gets referred to as an engine.. -- Andy Breen, not speaking on behalf of Aberystwyth University "The internet, that wonderful tool for bringing us into contact with things that make us wish we could scrub our brains out with dental floss.." (Charlie Stross) |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:09:02 +0000 (UTC)
Andy Breen wrote: Not always. You can get a significant power boost by injecting a fine mist of water into the air intake of an otto-cycle engine (it cools the fuel/air mix, increasing its density and thus the amount of mix delivered to the cylinder). Water injection was a hardy perrennial in aero-engines in the piston-engined days, either for emergency power boost or for take- off. Also used by the drag-racing boys, of course.. Actually, on reflection, you can use it with diesels too, as a way of cooling the air charge (after, I think , compression by the supercharger) and allowing more fuel to be injected per stroke. The Napier Nomad used water injection for power boost.. Won't the water mix with the NOx produced and produce nitric acid which will slowly eat away at the engine and exhaust system? B2003 |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:50:46 +0100, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 21/04/2011 12:02, Peter Campbell Smith wrote: Peter wrote in : The use of "engine" for electric motor is unheard of. What about winding engines in mines? Were they not originally steam engines? Originally they were horses (horse whims were "engines"), or probably humans on winches (a winch was an "engine" too). -- Andy Breen, not speaking on behalf of Aberystwyth University "The internet, that wonderful tool for bringing us into contact with things that make us wish we could scrub our brains out with dental floss.." (Charlie Stross) |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
On 21/04/2011 14:09, Andy Breen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:49:14 +0100, Graeme Wall wrote: On 21/04/2011 11:32, Andy Breen wrote: On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:25:50 +0100, Graeme Wall wrote: On 21/04/2011 11:04, Andy Breen wrote: Steam motor actually makes sense in the context I was using as it is an external combustion engine, as is an electric motor. An analogy that breaks down as soon as you introduce hydro/wind/tidal power into the equation :-) Isn't a water turbine a hydraulic engine? ;-) Told you the analogy broke down when you introduced water, it stops the combustion... Not always. You can get a significant power boost by injecting a fine mist of water into the air intake of an otto-cycle engine (it cools the fuel/air mix, increasing its density and thus the amount of mix delivered to the cylinder). Water injection was a hardy perrennial in aero-engines in the piston-engined days, either for emergency power boost or for take- off. Also used by the drag-racing boys, of course.. Actually, on reflection, you can use it with diesels too, as a way of cooling the air charge (after, I think , compression by the supercharger) and allowing more fuel to be injected per stroke. The Napier Nomad used water injection for power boost.. ;-) Didn't someone try spraying a fine mist of water into steam engine cylinders to condense the steam quicker? -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
As a tube driver, and knowing what was what and background information to
many things (as any tube staff would), I soon came to realise that most stuff reported about the tube / strikes / whatever was at best misleading or inadequate or at worse, downright lies. As a consequence, I normally treat any newspaper as a comic on the basis that most of what is printed is irrelevant or rubbish! Roger *From:* Bruce *Date:* Wed, 20 Apr 2011 23:14:08 +0100 "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 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." "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." "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? What has the man been on? I share your concern about the plummeting standards of journalism. However, there have always been problems when non-technical journalists - whose education and training has mostly excluded any mention of technology - write about technical matters. The Evening Standard article you quoted is certainly no worse than many other articles about technology by non-technical journalists. However, some of the worst standards of "journalism" are to be found on this newsgroup when contributors post messages about technology (other than rail) that they know less than nothing about. |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 14:51:24 +0100, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 21/04/2011 14:09, Andy Breen wrote: On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:49:14 +0100, Graeme Wall wrote: On 21/04/2011 11:32, Andy Breen wrote: On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:25:50 +0100, Graeme Wall wrote: On 21/04/2011 11:04, Andy Breen wrote: Steam motor actually makes sense in the context I was using as it is an external combustion engine, as is an electric motor. An analogy that breaks down as soon as you introduce hydro/wind/tidal power into the equation :-) Isn't a water turbine a hydraulic engine? ;-) Told you the analogy broke down when you introduced water, it stops the combustion... Not always. You can get a significant power boost by injecting a fine mist of water into the air intake of an otto-cycle engine (it cools the fuel/air mix, increasing its density and thus the amount of mix delivered to the cylinder). Water injection was a hardy perrennial in aero-engines in the piston-engined days, either for emergency power boost or for take- off. Also used by the drag-racing boys, of course.. Didn't someone try spraying a fine mist of water into steam engine cylinders to condense the steam quicker? Someone did. Actually, several someones did, starting with an ancient Alexandrine (so far as we know..), but it's usually associated with Newcomen who was the first to do it with a significant number of engines. Before Newcomen, Savery had been spraying a fine mist of water into the boiler to condense the steam to provide the vacuum needed for pumping. Newcomen combined Savery's condenser with Papin's piston-in-cylinder and - well, here we are today, arguing about the definition of "engine" (with, no doubt, some of us looking it up via a search *ng*n*..) -- Andy Breen, not speaking on behalf of Aberystwyth University "The internet, that wonderful tool for bringing us into contact with things that make us wish we could scrub our brains out with dental floss.." (Charlie Stross) |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
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. |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
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 |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
On Apr 20, 10:40*pm, "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 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." "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." "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? What has the man been on? What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent? Not being able to get a job as a doorman in a brothel, to paraphrase Norman St John- Stevas, describing Royal correspondents Not to be confused with Norma St John-Scott, for Peter Cook fans out there. Patrick |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Peter Fox wrote:
Mark Robinson wrote: On 21/04/2011 09:33, Graeme Wall wrote: Pedantically they have motors, not engines. The latter being those nasty infernal combustion thingies. Motors run on nice clean electrickery. Doubly pedantically, a motor *is* an engine (an engine isn't always a motor, though, cf siege engine, difference engine, database engine...) No. The use of "engine" for electric motor is unheard of. It is undoubtedly incorrect in rail use. I would agree it's uncommon in general use. But it is simply absurd to suggest that it is unheard of in general use. The article that sparked this thread is one quite clear example of that use. There is a use of "electric engine" in the British National Corpus: The electric engine is extremely efficient at converting electrical energy into movement, far more efficient than petrol, diesel or steam engines. -- New Scientist. London: IPC Magazines Ltd, 1991, pp. ??. It's an elementary matter to find more uses like this with the aid of your preferred search engine. tom -- Eight-bit is forever |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
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 |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
I can see this thread running for ever. Seems to be bobbin along nicely as it is! Envo |
What does it take to be a Transport Correspondent?
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk