On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 09:15:02PM -0000, Recliner wrote:

Parry hasn't managed to sell any more People Movers.

I'm not particularly surprised. They seem to be the sort of thing that
would only be useful on lines that are on the brink of closure.

--
David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive

Computer Science is about lofty design goals and careful algorithmic
optimisation. Sysadminning is about cleaning up the resulting mess.

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 09:39:11AM +0000, d wrote:

I think modern students are pretty sussed on their own personal economics.
When you're going to have to pay back up to 27K for a 3 year course you're not
going to dick about with some jack of all trades degree if potential employers
want specialists.

There are plenty of jobs where being a narrow specialist is actively
harmful. Pretty much anything that involves publishing, for example,
including journalism. Lots of other media-ish jobs. Lots of
marketing/sales/PR stuff.

--
David Cantrell | top google result for "topless karaoke murders"

On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:53:53 +0100
JNugent wrote:
On 23/06/2016 11:49, d wrote:
You're the economic expert and so sure about it so
fill us in. Airlines are a good example of where supply drives demand, not
the other way around.

You don't even know what that means.

Then you're a bit thick arn't you.

You can't read either.

Well thats what comes from skim reading your rubbish.

No one was clamouring for 20 quid flights to Bordeaux ,

No-one was clamouring for Beatles LPs in 1960, either.

And for exactly thye same reason.

Quite. And has the same level of importance - ie zero.

there weren't street protests or questions in parliament about
the price of airfares or there being no routes to obscure airfields in the
middle of nowhere for Place In the Sun 2nd home owners. The cheap airlines
came
along and created that market in the same way that coffee shop chains have
created the market for overpriced hot milk in a cardboard cup.

There was already a market for flight.

There was already a market for coffee. But not the way its dished up now.
Ditto flights.

What the entrepreneurs did was *reduce* the price, thereby increasing
the demand.

You'd know this if you'd bothered to study.

And that contradicts what I said about supply driving demand, how exactly?
Give em lots of cheap flights and they come.

Moron. Can you use google?

I'm not running after you clearing up your mess.

I take that as a no.

Consumerism is overated

I see.

No, sadly you don't. Just like most of the shallow sheep out there.

You are REALLy angry that ordinary people can travel nowadays, aren't you?

Just stating a fact.

You DO care.

Not about the ticket price. If the number of flights were capped it makes no
difference if tickets were 10 quid or 1000. It would be the same number of
planes flying.

Quality of life for those of us who have to put up with the noise and
pollution trumps anything to do with ticket prices or shareholders
dividends.

You see... the trouble is that it plainly *doesn't*.

Because of the mentality of people like you. I guess it won't matter to you
since you're probably just another wizzened ****-you-i'm-alright-jack baby
boomer who'll be dribbling in a chair or dead in a couple of decades and
won't know or care. Some of us plan on lasting a bit longer and worry about the
future for us and our kids.

Here's something for you pal:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BsthGCMCUAArhRe.png

No, thanks.

Its just an image you twonk. If I was going to point you at malware I'd be
a lot more subtle about it.

--
Spud

On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 14:07:21 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 09:39:11AM +0000, d wrote:

I think modern students are pretty sussed on their own personal economics.
When you're going to have to pay back up to 27K for a 3 year course you're
not
going to dick about with some jack of all trades degree if potential
employers
want specialists.

There are plenty of jobs where being a narrow specialist is actively
harmful. Pretty much anything that involves publishing, for example,
including journalism. Lots of other media-ish jobs. Lots of
marketing/sales/PR stuff.

Sure. But then the trades you've mentioned are more vocational and on the job
anyway. They're something you can generally only do with knowledge of other
things which doesn't apply to something like maths or physics in the same way.

--
Spud

On 22.06.16 8:06, tim... wrote:

wrote in message ...
On 21.06.16 13:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:26:04 on Tue, 21 Jun
2016, tim... remarked:
10 people per minute.

Not a huge number, is it?

I know that they arrive at the station (and the airport) in waves,
but ISTM that wave will flatten itself out due to the normal
differences that people have in walking time (with their luggage)
from the platform to the start of the walkway.

It's far too small a number to justify a project as ambitious as you
suggest.

and building a monorail/whatever other fixed link is less ambitions?

That's even worse. The bus is the most sensible solution.

Monorails have a tendency not to work, with Newark Liberty Airport
being a prime example.

What about an H-Bahn, however, the type of which they have at Dortmund
and at Düsseldorf Airport? Perhaps a turnkey project?

are you simply suggesting the the technology used should be a "hanging"
train rather than one sitting on top of a rail

surely the average person would consider that is a "monorail", it still
only has one rail

tim




I honestly have no idea, though it seems like the H-Bahns at Düsseldorf
and Dortmund, as well as the Schwebebahn in Wupperthal work. Monorails,
the ones that sit atop a rail, do not from my personal observation seem
to enjoy the same rate of success.

On 23.06.16 10:27, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 21:15:02 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Yes, there are two similar Class 139 PPM60 vehicles, both LPG powered, with
2.3l four cylinder industrial engines used to spin up the flywheel:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_139

I wonder why they didn't build an electric one. Have a contact shoe and short
piece of 3rd rail (of a design to keep HMRI or whoever happy) to charge up the
flywheel at each end.

The Parry People Mover has been promoted for a while and this was its first
production deployment. So it's more of a case of a technology seeking a
market, rather than a solution to this need. Without these rail buses, the
line will probably revert to using a class 53.


Are there plans to withdraw the 139s?

On 23.06.16 14:04, David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 09:15:02PM -0000, Recliner wrote:

Parry hasn't managed to sell any more People Movers.

I'm not particularly surprised. They seem to be the sort of thing that
would only be useful on lines that are on the brink of closure.


Perhaps they could find some use on the Island Line?

wrote:
On 23.06.16 10:27, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 21:15:02 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Yes, there are two similar Class 139 PPM60 vehicles, both LPG powered, with
2.3l four cylinder industrial engines used to spin up the flywheel:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_139

I wonder why they didn't build an electric one. Have a contact shoe and short
piece of 3rd rail (of a design to keep HMRI or whoever happy) to charge up the
flywheel at each end.

The Parry People Mover has been promoted for a while and this was its first
production deployment. So it's more of a case of a technology seeking a
market, rather than a solution to this need. Without these rail buses, the
line will probably revert to using a class 53.


Are there plans to withdraw the 139s?

Not that I'm aware of, but I suspect they won't have the long life of a
normal rail vehicle.

As a matter of interest, does anyone know if they'd be allowed on lines
that also had conventional heavy rail vehicles? I'd assume not.

On 2016\06\23 21:34, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On 23.06.16 10:27, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 21:15:02 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Yes, there are two similar Class 139 PPM60 vehicles, both LPG powered, with
2.3l four cylinder industrial engines used to spin up the flywheel:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_139

I wonder why they didn't build an electric one. Have a contact shoe and short
piece of 3rd rail (of a design to keep HMRI or whoever happy) to charge up the
flywheel at each end.

The Parry People Mover has been promoted for a while and this was its first
production deployment. So it's more of a case of a technology seeking a
market, rather than a solution to this need. Without these rail buses, the
line will probably revert to using a class 53.


Are there plans to withdraw the 139s?

Not that I'm aware of, but I suspect they won't have the long life of a
normal rail vehicle.

As a matter of interest, does anyone know if they'd be allowed on lines
that also had conventional heavy rail vehicles? I'd assume not.

Do they live on the branch? Where are they fuelled? Where are they
cleaned? Where are they maintained? Where do the drivers clock on?

On 2016\06\23 21:18, wrote:
On 23.06.16 14:04, David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 09:15:02PM -0000, Recliner wrote:

Parry hasn't managed to sell any more People Movers.

I'm not particularly surprised. They seem to be the sort of thing that
would only be useful on lines that are on the brink of closure.


Perhaps they could find some use on the Island Line?

Aren't they too tall for the tunnel?