"Tim Ward" wrote in message
...

So I drive Cambridge boats from the Cambridge end and Oxford boats from
the
Oxford end. Not that punting in Oxford is a terribly interesting
experience
anyway, due to them having put the river in the wrong place.

You've never been on the rollers through Parson's Pleasure, then?
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society
75th Anniversary 2004, see http://www.omnibussoc.org/75th.htm
E-mail:
URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

In message , at 18:31:20 on Sat, 8 Jan
2005, David Splett remarked:
Cleaning would help, but they are older than you think. Introduced in
1995.

I'm sure they were introduced later than that. They were built in c.1995,
but my memory tells me they didn't start to enter service until 1997-8.

http://www.semg.org.uk/gallery/class365_01.html

"two batches of the now designated class 365 were built between
1994 and 1995. Sixteen DC units (but with provision for AC) were
provided for Kent Coast services (numbered 365501-365516) and
twenty five AC units (but with provision for DC) for Great
Northern services out of Kings Cross (numbered 365517-365541)."

Why would they sit un-used for 2 years?

http://www.hse.gov.uk/railways/pottersbar/interim1.htm

"The Class 365/5 was introduced to the Kings Lynn – Cambridge
- Kings Cross line in the mid 1990's."
--
Roland Perry

On 9 Jan 2005 00:05:32 GMT, (D.M. Garner) wrote:

I would love to telecommute, but it can never replace the quality
of interaction you get from chatting face-to-face and scribbling
things on pieces of paper in meetings.

I'd agree with that. While I'm still based in an office, my role has
changed somewhat over the 3 years I've been with the company, in that
it mostly involved face-to-face working at the start and is now almost
entirely involving working with people in the US via teleconferences.


As far as I am concerned, my productivity has dropped markedly as a
result, largely because of the fact that people have very little
discipline in teleconferences and so either invite people who don't
need to be there, or waffle on for ages rather than getting to the
point.

I have quite a bit of time (!) for the management consultancy (can't
recall which one) that banned seating and refreshments from meeting
rooms, in order that they could be over with as quickly as possible.
Pity such things can't be applied easily to teleconferences.

Productivity (or not) aside, I find it a bit more difficult to work
with people (at a personal level) who I've never actually met. Just
feels odd.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 08:19:18 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 18:31:20 on Sat, 8 Jan
2005, David Splett remarked:
Cleaning would help, but they are older than you think. Introduced in
1995.

I'm sure they were introduced later than that. They were built in c.1995,
but my memory tells me they didn't start to enter service until 1997-8.

http://www.semg.org.uk/gallery/class365_01.html

"two batches of the now designated class 365 were built between
1994 and 1995. Sixteen DC units (but with provision for AC) were
provided for Kent Coast services (numbered 365501-365516) and
twenty five AC units (but with provision for DC) for Great
Northern services out of Kings Cross (numbered 365517-365541)."

Why would they sit un-used for 2 years?

I'm not sure why, but I think they did. Something to do with traction
motor problems? I'm sure I first saw one in use in Cambridge during
the summer of 1997. There had been some sat around near the station
earlier in the year (along with the cement wagons!), but I hadn't
/seen/ one in use until then.

Google groups shows that Barry Salter wrote:
Does anyone here know when WAGN are going to start using their Class
365's as they're currently sitting outside Hornsey depot doing
nothing :-)
in May 1997. There is also a reference to someone riding one to
Cambridge in April 1997.


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

In article , Clive Coleman
writes
In message , Clive D. W. Feather
writes
Otherwise all those points are set to "needed" (causing them to move
if they're currently wrong). One the train passes over each set they
move back to "free" (unless another route is also holding them)
What's the chances that the points freed at Poters Bar, whist the train
was going over them, allowing the first part of the train in the right
direct and the second part by the point being able to move?

Zero.

As well as various controls in the signalling logic (note that I said
"once the train passed, modulo misspelling), there is a separate "direct
track locking". If the track circuit covering the points is not clear,
the points are not allowed to move. The relay concerned is "slow to
rise" to allow for a momentary failure to detect the train.

This was allowed for in the investigation. There was no train movement
in the near future requiring those points to be swung, so there would
have been no reason for them to try to move.

In any case, the points were found to be correctly set and locked. The
accident happened because one of the blades broke free from the locking
mechanism underneath the train. The processes involved - and the errors
in assembly - are well understood by now; the question is *why* the
points were wrongly assembled.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In article , Michael Bell
writes
Where a branch line diverges from a main line, as at Hitchin, when idle
and no train is immediately expectd. the points normally return ("default" it
would be called in computer terms) the straight ahead main-line setting.

That's called "self-restoring" and it is *NOT* the normal arrangement.
Indeed, if you watch at Hitchin you can see it not happen.

There are a few places where points are made self-restoring. There are
rather more cases where points may move for a not-immediately-obvious
reason. For example, at crossovers - the links between adjacent tracks -
it is normal for both ends to move at the same time. So the points at
the end of the northbound platform at Hitchin have to be set for
Peterborough before a northbound fast train can go through, even though
it doesn't cross them. There are more complex layouts where the
relationship is less obvious, but it's there nevertheless.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In article ,
(Roland Perry) wrote:

In message , at 18:31:20 on Sat, 8 Jan
2005, David Splett remarked:
Cleaning would help, but they are older than you think. Introduced in
1995.

I'm sure they were introduced later than that. They were built in
c.1995, but my memory tells me they didn't start to enter service until
1997-8.

http://www.semg.org.uk/gallery/class365_01.html

"two batches of the now designated class 365 were built between
1994 and 1995. Sixteen DC units (but with provision for AC) were
provided for Kent Coast services (numbered 365501-365516) and
twenty five AC units (but with provision for DC) for Great
Northern services out of Kings Cross (numbered 365517-365541)."

Why would they sit un-used for 2 years?

http://www.hse.gov.uk/railways/pottersbar/interim1.htm

"The Class 365/5 was introduced to the Kings Lynn – Cambridge
- Kings Cross line in the mid 1990's."

I remember them taking some time to get into service Roland. It could have
been two years before the job was complete.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at
01:19:00 on Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
I remember them taking some time to get into service Roland. It could have
been two years before the job was complete.

OK, so we are agreed that they entered service in 1997.

Getting back to the original issue, are we surprised/shocked/unphased
that they are looking a bit worn and dirty after 8 years daily use??
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
(Roland Perry) wrote:

In message , at
01:19:00 on Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
I remember them taking some time to get into service Roland. It could
have been two years before the job was complete.

OK, so we are agreed that they entered service in 1997.

Getting back to the original issue, are we surprised/shocked/unphased
that they are looking a bit worn and dirty after 8 years daily use??

I thought they had worn pretty well until I noticed a recent increase in
glass scratching and graffiti when in service.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at
08:36:00 on Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
Getting back to the original issue, are we surprised/shocked/unphased
that they are looking a bit worn and dirty after 8 years daily use??

I thought they had worn pretty well until I noticed a recent increase in
glass scratching and graffiti when in service.

Even two years ago there were plenty of scratches and dents in the
doors, and a generally "rusty/grubby" look to the outsides from knee
level down. The insides were reasonable, though.
--
Roland Perry