Titan

Since when has holding the record for being the fastest in the world at something not been a claim to fame? Presumably you think Concorde has no claim to fame as the fastest passenger plane? Does the first land vehicle to break the sound barrier also have no claim to fame? Or how about the longest* in the world? And the conjugated valve gear was pretty ingenious, even with its flaws. It was LNER's flagship loco, etc etc. the list goes on and on. If that does not constitute a claim to fame then what does? Care to give examples? Perhaps this is a classic case of putting down to suit an agenda/opinion no matter how wrong it may be... * non stop run - twice!

[pedant] Edward actually [/pedant]

And bearing in mind that they are quite capable of taking innocent people with them too.

What next, Halal pork?

Reminds me of a story that was told somewhere on one of the Hornby APT threads. Someone was on a demonstration stand at an exhibition carving up APT bodies to make intermediate trailers. An aghast onlooker exclaimed "If you knew how much those were worth you would not be doing that!" To which he got the reply "Since I bought these three sets two weeks ago I know exactly what they are worth!"

I thought these were supposed to be finescale?

Not forgetting a long stay in York...

I'll have a P please Bob! https://youtu.be/_u3sbu6aokM

He was suffering from shock.

Wok awound the clock. Johnathan Ross's favourite

It is widespread. I was on another motoring forum where there was a guy who was in to getting good economy from his diesel. He claimed that he was getting around 10% better mpg by avoiding supermarket fuel. Many were skeptical. Those of us that actually put his theory to the test, including me, got the same results - about 10% improvement. I was doing long distance commuting at the time, so was able to test as accurately as possible, by virtue of doing identical journeys week in, week out. Three consecutive tankfuls of Sainsburys v 3 consecutive tankfuls of Shell, and I consistently got around 10% improvement tested back to back with all other variables reduced to insignificance. As the Shell was much less than 10% more, the Shell gave me lower costs overall. The reason why so many people are unaware of this is that very few actually go to the bother of accurately measuring just how much fuel they have used, particularly when they are skeptical in the first place, (as was I) and a 10% difference is not particularly noticeable unless you actually go looking for it. Therefore most people carry on in blissful ignorance thinking they are saving money using the cheaper fuel.

Unfortunately many broad gauge main lines were quadrupled after the change to standard gauge, and in so doing already used up the extra space.

Why do people keep confusing test/trial with full scale introduction? This is the second thread which this has happened recently. How come the concept is so difficult to grasp for some?

Pity the diesel engine had yet to be invented!

That works both ways. Sometimes an apparently blindingly obvious problem turns out not to be once tested. And it will only be a fair test if it is done under typical conditions. A lightly used motorway may yield misleading results.

I do wonder if people are missing the point. This is a test not a full scale introduction. The whole point of a test is to find out what the problems actually are, rather than to speculate. Under the circumstances I expect the test to be thorough, in which case it will reveal which issues are real problems and which are imaginary ones. I expect that the test may also reveal other problems that no-one has thought of yet too...

Indeed, especially bearing in mind how many on this forum are experienced professional railwaymen...

I would have thought that would be as a result of inadequate design rather than old age/wear.

I suspect the jet engines 'efficiency' at high altitude has got more to do with needing far less power to push the airplane through thin air rather than it being in it's ideal operating environment. Indeed the thinner the air the less there is for the jet engine to react with. Put a jet engine in space and it won't work at all...

And toilet waste...

I suppose you could always put a clamp on its propeller....

And how are you going to persuade them to give up their jobs and move themselves and their families over here, just to do the same thing?

Looks like a bottom feeder to me.

It appears that our IT department is using the power of the dark side... I know we may have thought of blowing up our computers, but I think it is a bit of an extreme solution!

I would imagine that the timbers would rot out before the rail becomes worn anyway.