In article
,
(Boltar) wrote:

On Nov 25, 5:03 pm, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:
"Boltar" wrote

Lighten up. Its a common colloquialism and the nazis are just
another part history for anyone under the age of 63.

Only *ignorant* people under 63.
And if it's just another part of history, then why bring it up and
prove your ignorance?

Oh give it a rest FFS. The nazis weren't the first genocidal state in
history and they won't be the last. Making out there were some sort of
special case is just BS. Even in the 20th century Stalin persecuted
and murdered far more people than hitler managed yet no one objects
the the word "stalinist" being used. The Khmer Rouge are estimated to
have murdered a 5th of the total population of Cambodia and god knows
what the death toll in Rwanda is up to these days.

I think we should really invoke Godwin's Law at this stage.

Just let it be said you are, not for the first time, spouting ignorant
********. If you haven't yet been confronted with the sheer
industrialisation of killing by the Nazis then perhaps it's time you were.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Nov 25, 5:19*pm, D7666 wrote:
On Nov 25, 4:57 pm, Boltar wrote:

On Nov 25, 2:05 pm, "Richard J." wrote:
By the way, please don't use the word 'nazi' to describe something that's
just irritating. *It's gratuitous exaggeration, doesn't help your argument,
and devalues the horrors of the real Nazis.
Lighten up. Its a common colloquialism

Indeed.

If one goes down the road of censorship i.e. by attempting to prevent
the use of certain words then [a] one is guilty of the same
totalitarianism of the subject that started this digression [b] one
will ended up not using any adjectives in case someone somewhere at
sometime did something to somebody in history.

As someone who is sometimes flippant and exaggerates, I am often
corrected on what I say. I would never consider it to be "censorship"
if someone suggests that I should be more accurate. It would be too
bizarre even for me to defend my inaccuracy on the grounds of
correction being censorship.

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:23:59 -0800 (PST), D7666
wrote:

On Nov 25, 9:03 pm, David Hansen
wrote:

Was the locomotive able to run on a 750V system?

ITYF that Sarah Siddons is electrically a bit more basic than a modern
locomotive and the necessary mods were mostly concerned with the
voltage rating of cable insulation and providing a method of altering
the current return path; these might have been dealt with at marginal
cost during one of its overhauls during "retirement". I don't recall
anyone mentioning what was done about the motors, if anything.

Yes it went to Portsmouth and Folkestone at least

http://www.sixbellsjunction.co.uk/80s/840707mr.htm

http://www.sixbellsjunction.co.uk/80s/850921lt.htm


as well as Windsor shuttles, maybe more.

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, D7666 wrote:

On Nov 25, 6:23 pm, Andy wrote:

Has the separate ticket seller disappeared now? The guard only seemed
to sell tickets at weekends.

Well if there was a 3rd crew member they stayed well hidden in one of
the cabs.

But I doubt in the 21st century any TOC would three man an operation
like Watford Snorbens.

Unless they were pushing the train, to save on electricity.

tom

--
Mpreg is short for Male Impregnation and I cannot get enough. -- D

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 08:57:17 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:32:20 -0000 someone who may be
wrote this:-

Is a fourth rail really necessary out that way, however? I always understood
that they were really needed only for the tub sections of the tube, to help
power flow into the motors. I heard this on the Island Line, where 38 stock
operates only with a 3rd rail.

It operates there after being modified to allow the traction supply
to travel via the running rails. Heavy electric currents through
bearings is not a good combination, hence the modification.

There was IMU some trouble of that nature when c.501s were converted
from 4-rail to 3-rail in the early 1970s.

On Nov 25, 11:58 pm, Charles Ellson
wrote:

Was the locomotive able to run on a 750V system?

ITYF that Sarah Siddons is electrically a bit more basic than a modern
locomotive and the necessary mods were mostly concerned with the
voltage rating of cable insulation

I think I have read before (in uk.railway) that all LU stock is being
or has been rewired whenever rewiring is needed to accept 750 V DC
simply as thats the standard and its cost no difference to lover
vales.

anyone mentioning what was done about the motors, if anything.

AFAIK it has bog standard MV339s.

Now older 4Sub had MV339 and they were not allowed - I think - west of
Pirbright Junction because of the BOMO line nominal higher voltage
(which certainly has been explained in detail by Richard Catlow) .
EE507 4Sub - which was really all the ones that survived into the
1970s were (again I think, I am not certan) OK. Not that 4sub had much
occasion to run west of Pirbright anyway apart from possible access to
Eastleigh works.

--
Nick

On Nov 25, 10:47 pm, MIG wrote:


On Nov 25, 5:19 pm, D7666 wrote:
If one goes down the road of censorship i.e. by attempting to prevent

I would never consider it to be "censorship"
if someone suggests that I should be more accurate.

I did say ''down the road to'' meaning we had not actually got there
yet ...

--
Nick

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:43:14 -0800 (PST), D7666
wrote:

On Nov 25, 6:23 pm, Andy wrote:

Has the separate ticket seller
disappeared now? The guard only seemed to sell tickets at weekends.

Well if there was a 3rd crew member they stayed well hidden in one of
the cabs.

But I doubt in the 21st century any TOC would three man an operation
like Watford Snorbens.

I suspect they would if the cost of his "revenue protection" was
covered by the receipts which would otherwise be lost by e.g.
non-collection of fares from passengers completing their journeys
before the train reached Watford in the rush hours.

In article
,
(D7666) wrote:

On Nov 25, 11:58 pm, Charles Ellson
wrote:

Was the locomotive able to run on a 750V system?

ITYF that Sarah Siddons is electrically a bit more basic than a modern
locomotive and the necessary mods were mostly concerned with the
voltage rating of cable insulation

I think I have read before (in uk.railway) that all LU stock is being
or has been rewired whenever rewiring is needed to accept 750 V DC
simply as thats the standard and its cost no difference to lover vales.

anyone mentioning what was done about the motors, if anything.

AFAIK it has bog standard MV339s.

Now older 4Sub had MV339 and they were not allowed - I think - west of
Pirbright Junction because of the BOMO line nominal higher voltage
(which certainly has been explained in detail by Richard Catlow) .
EE507 4Sub - which was really all the ones that survived into the
1970s were (again I think, I am not certan) OK. Not that 4sub had much
occasion to run west of Pirbright anyway apart from possible access to
Eastleigh works.

I've been down Sole Bank in a 2-BIL. Ran OK but blew a few light bulbs.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Nov 25, 7:11 pm, David Hansen
wrote:
about the Gestapo and it is right to point out that some comparisons
are very wide of the mark. I have zero tolerance for some
comparisons.

Thats your problem then. No one else cares.

B2003