Joseph_Pestell

But quicker than Nadine Dorries' newspeak meaning of immediatwe.

21 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I should think it has been a case of "cheaply, or not at all" since we all know that to do the job without resort to false economy would require a higher rate of taxation and politicians understand perfectly well that the electorate is as interested in short term financial gain as any capitalist.

"Not at all" might have been the better option in this case.

I suspect that there has been some slightly inaccurate reporting by overeager journalists. I can't see why the concrete would not last indefinitely if kept dry.  The issue (30-year life) is about roof coverings (roofing felt + tar) not having done its job, allowing the concrete to contain water. As the concrete planks then sag, the situation becomes even worse as any water will pool rather than run off.

Personally, I am completely against flat roofs in our climate. Even around the Med, they give endless problems.

The people responsible for our public sector don't really have much knowledge or experience of practical matters like building. It seems extraordinary that anyone would specify a material with a 30-year life expectancy to put in a publicly-funded building, a totally false economy.

The Govt ministers commenting on the media seem to have no understanding of how long this is going to take to solve or indeed what it will take. One can not just replace a floor or a ceiling like that. It will have structural consequences on the whole building. Likely result is total demolition.

And, of course, this is not just schools, hospitals, etc.  There will be private sector housing, offices also affected and needing scarce building resources to remediate.

Finally, to bring back to the railway, the most likely buildings to be concerned would be signal boxes. We could see huge disruption to train services if a signal box at a key location is found to be in danger of a roof collapse.

7 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Do French drivers still wear goggles?

yes, at least on the steam trips I have done.

11 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Naughty naughty. Politics is banned.😀

I do find it funny that for the cost of the ULEZ charge for one day a week for a year you can buy a compliant car.

I do wonder where these millions of people who are too poor to do that are hiding.

Bernard

My car is worth £800 (according to insurers) and ULEZ compliant.

14 hours ago, DenysW said:

Are you saying that a choice of quiet thinking versus watching day-time TV for the 23 hours/day not allocated to exercise is not a truly 'orrible fate for scrotes? Thinking? Sheesh! In the US I'm sure that would fail the "cruel and unusual" test. Maybe restrict the daytime TV to Traffic Cops and the like for the ones who are really confused about who the Good Guys are.

Something strange going on here with the RMWeb "system".

Your post quotes a comment alleged to be from me. It is not me that made that comment.

18 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

Must be deliberate, surely. 

 

As Pierre Denfert-Rochereau was the heroic defender of Belfort in the Franco-Prussian war or 1870-1, clearly the name could only be a change post the creation of the circular station. It struck me how many street names in the centre of Paris related to even more recent figures - war and post war - which constant renaming, I always feel, suggests a certain Banana Republic impermance.

 

When I was young and foolish I was rather smug that we managed to get things finally out of our system by 1688 and have been a stable constitutional monarchy since then, whereas, in the same period, France has had three monarchies, two empires and five republics, not to mention the bonus feature of Vichy France, which actively fought against one of my old regiments on the German side in WW2! Of course, in my youth our parliamentary democracy was yet to enter its decadent terminal phase, when it would be perverted by rogues and charlatons to the cheers of the deluded. But, then, if there is one lesson to be learned from the history of our country since 2016, it is the danger of British, and especially English, exceptionalism.  

Paris, as we know it, is quite recent. Although there was a defensive wall, roughly where the Boulevard Peripherique is now, which defined the Paris boundary, there was a lot of land within that area which was not built up. Areas like Montmartre were separate villages. In 1870, the area where Denfert Rochereau station is would not have been built up. I suspect that many of these streets with 20c names are contemporary with those that they are named after, although some have changed e.g. Place Stalingrad.

11 hours ago, polybear said:

 

Ah yes, that'll be Doris......

Another Bear policy will be to get scrotes on Community Service, as well as low security prison scrotes near the end of their sentences working (unpaid) on road gangs fixin' potholes.

 

 

Make Prison suitably bad and it should make the scrotes think twice about going back there again.

 

A considerable percentage of inmates choose to be there because they find it simpler than outside.

The design "trick" with this layout is that longer trains can only run from the station end as half rakes. So freight becomes difficult as the whole train has to run through

That means the hidden sidings/traverser at each end become too long relative to the visual part of the layout. The layout builder has concentrated on DMUs at the east end of the layout plus track repair trains. Those have a plus in that they can be top-and-tailed so the locos do not need to be handled.

400mm width is going to be problematic even with the through roads left off. It's going to leave very little space for the platforms. 

10 hours ago, AndyID said:

 

Many Moons ago we were driving through France and stopped at a cafe for some early morning breakfast. Two well endowed motor-cycle Gendarmes came in and had espressos at the bar accompanied by substantial glasses of cognac 😁 

In the 1960s, my family stayed several times at a hotel in Lisieux (right by the railway). Morning coffee was always served with a shot of cognac or calvados, even for me then aged 11!

400mm / 600mm is rather more than "thereabouts".

I think that 500mm would be enough but a shame not to retain at least one through road. A nice layout that I had not seen before.

It would not take long, with the right kit, to clear the debris that is on the track. What concerns me, from the photos, is the amount of extremely unstable ground left further up the hillside.

French transport minister says that there will be disruption for a few days. That seems a tad optimistic!

But then Macron thought that Notre Dame would be rebuilt in a couple of years.

13 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

I've eaten horse though it was offered as steak in a back street cafe in Calais. I didn't realise until a bit later when I commented on the taste and it was suggested that it was indeed horse.

I don't remember ever seeing horse ever explicitly offered on a French restaurant menu (I have seen it in Belgium). It used to be that beef steak would be offered as bifteck but that tradition seems to have almost died out so not easy to know which you will get. France used to have different categories of butchers' shops including boucherie chevaline. Very rarely seen nowadays, but sometimes still on ancient signage.

14 hours ago, checkrail said:

 

Yep, I was aware of that case Trevor, reported in the media and mentioned by me at the time somewhere else on this forum.  It was a driver from Evri, formerly known as Hermes. Hope these firms have now all got protocols and checks in place to stop this happening.  But my recent experience with DPD makes you wonder.

The courier firms all have the measures in place to stop misdeeds by their drivers. And have had for many years.

But it is a tough job and some drivers will always bend/break the rules to try and make the job bearable/financially viable.

Hermes did have a shocking reputation, hence the rebranding. When I lived in Dorset, our local Hermes driver was  excellent.

9 hours ago, AndyID said:

I much prefer "Personnel" over "Human Resources".

 

The term "Human Resources" is distinctly de-humanizing because it suggests humans are a commodity that can be purchased (and dumped on the market) as required.

But that is, sadly, the reality these days. May as well tell it like it is.

3 hours ago, The Johnster said:

If you make voting compulsory (which is IMHO a very good idea), you have to cater for those voters who want to register abstentions or, as an alternative, to vote against rather than for candidates.  This would prevent the current situation where the last half-dozen or so UK governments claim a mandate from the electorate because they won, but perhaps seventy or eighty percent of the electorate did not vote for them,  and usually only around thirty or so percent of the those that voted at all in low turnouts did vote for them.  This makes a mockery of the democratic principle that governments are of, by, and for, the majority of the people when they are nothing like that. 

 

(But then, the UK has a semi-democratic system at best, with an upper house that still contains hereditary and ecclesiastical peers that are given their positions by virtue of nothing more than status and tradition, and life peers that are appointed rather than elected, and this archaic body can and does veto measures voted for by the democratically elected lower house.  We have no formal constitution or bill of rights, and are unable to own land unless we are royal, of the nobility, or the established church (this is a technicality, we can and do own the right to hold property on land owned by the crown, nobility, or church, leasehold for a set period and freehold in perpetuity), but it's an important one; mineral and other rights reside with the actual owner.  Strike oil in your back garden in the US or many other countries and you're rich; do it here and you simply have a mess to clear up.)

 

I'm not blaming political parties or governments for this, it's a result of voter apathy and the electorate are themselves responsible, but it does seem to me that it is only parliament that can remedy the situation, and that compulsory voting of the sort I described where abstentions and votes against are recorded might allow the party with the most votes for, or the least against, to be first past the post and win, but would not allow them to claim any sort of mandate; 'the nation has spoken, and it clearly endorses our policies',, well, no, it hasn't, if only twenty percent of the electorate voted for you and sixty percent voted against you but you were still first past the post, so bear that in mind when you implement your policies against the stated will of the majority of the people.

 

Of course, I accept that some people may find it off-puttingly complex, but the same can be said of proportional representation, and plenty of countries do fine with that.

 

Rant over, for now...

Not quite sure what this is doing on the "Jokes thread" (or even RMWeb at all). Other, of course, that the UK parliamentary system is a farce.

9 minutes ago, hayfield said:

My personal view is that when planning the channel tunnel rail links too little thought was put into onward travel, as said in the last post usually connections at regional stations are usually quite easily made simply by changing trains at the same main line station

 

But the issue arrives as most travellers have to exit either Garde du Nord or St Pancras when continuing ones journey to other parts of the respective countries. OK both cities have their underground connections, but these are really designed for commuters not those with luggage. I suppose in both cities historically most main line stations were built as termini with little thought of continuous onward travel, where as most regional city stations are hubs for onward travel

 

I guess having hubs  nearer the tunnel on both sides would also involve other issues and not be as convenient  as current arrangements

I totally agree that not enough thought was put into creating connections/onward travel,

But this was not really a "railway problem". It was a political issue about "control of our borders". 

35 minutes ago, melmerby said:

In the USA trains with locomotive(s) on the front, locomotive(s) in the middle and locomotive(s) at the end are normal practice these days.

However this practice was not unknown in the steam era in the UK:

 

One on the front

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/mrch863.htm

 

One in the middle:

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/mrch862.htm

 

There's also one on the rear pushing (banking)!

 

 

 

i doubt that picture shows one train. More likely two trains stopped on a goods loop or goods line waiting for another train to pass on the through line.

22 hours ago, TEAMYAKIMA said:

 

Hello Joseph

 

I take your point, but just to clarify the situation, what we are really discussing on my layout is more a case of an 'extra/different' movement rather than shunting in the sense that you are describing on Bournemouth West. 

 

We just have a simple loop right at the front of the layout and so the only possible movements are 1. Rake of box cars arrives   2. Rake of box cars departs  with the possible addition of 1A, Light loco returns to fiddle yard  1B. Light loco enters scenic section and couples to rake of box cars.

 

 

Hi Paul,

I was just responding to F-Unit's post. Your layout is of rather different design which optimises movements on the through lines. It seems to me that you have chosen the right option for your single siding goods depot.

A fork-lift truck running on a Faller system? Perhaps a bit too small.

12 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

I must admit that one of my pet hates at a Show (& I don't have many) is seeing goods yards & facilities that don't get shunted at all during the show. Obviously it's big layouts that happens on, too. 

Seems a waste to me, but I would also be concerned that if someone happened to pass the layout during a moment when nothing was moving on the main lines, but just saw this rake of cars & stationary loco, then by sheer chance managed to pass it again later & all they saw was the same rake of cars & loco, it could be very easy not just to write-off the layout as "something Foreign" - a big enough issue itself - but also as a 'boring' layout where nothing moves, despite your team's best efforts to the contrary.?

Just my 2p. Worth zip, really. 😉

On the excellent Bournemouth West they do shunt the goods yard. But it is, so far as I know, a wholly separate operation with an operator sat in front of the layout and operating it like an inglenook sidings. Seems like a reasonable compromise to me which allows for the fairly constant movement of passenger trains.

10 hours ago, MrWolf said:

 

I had to be very selective to find something that was publishable or make any sense.

 

I also did my first driving lesson on a disused airfield, Melton Mowbray. Nothing as interesting as a MKII Jag though. Peugeot  sensible 5 door 205 GRD.

 

 

I, too, was lucky enough to start as a learner off road. In my case, it was not an airfield but the floor of a large unused reservoir, just by one of the Crystal Palace TV masts. And a dull Ford Escort Mk1.

But prior to moving into the reservoir, the driving school had used part of the racetrack in Crystal Palace Park. Some students were allowed to do some laps of the track in a Capri 3.1L!

3 hours ago, AndyID said:

A "colorful" question to consider:

 

We have all this amazing technology available to us so why can't we use it to stop people looking at their expletive phones while they are supposed to be driving their cars?

 

 

Having been involved in a few near misses with such idiots, I totally agree. i would add pedestrians to the list.

I don't think that it would be all that difficult technologically. A phone has to be constantly aware of its location, so it also knows when it is on the move. Just shut it down remotely when on the move. That would, of course, also stop passengers, including those on buses and trains, from using their phones. But some days, I would rate that a good thing.

15 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

"its always dodgy on the side being punished, but perfectly correct on the side gaining the benefit !! "

 

I was not talking about that game but in the way VAR decisions are received, If its against the team you are supporting its  often perceived as dodgy, however if its for you team its correct, please stop being so woke and looking to be offended.

 

 

 

The referee in the Nigeria game awarded England a penalty, upon review changed her mind !!! If she was it the best possible position why did she change her mind ?

 

 

I agree that we seem to have a similar view about VAR.

But I still resent your comment insofar as it is directed at me. I may be slightly unusual in being so objective but I don't let my support for a team cloud my judgment about the facts. Is that "woke"? Woke seems to me to be an Alice-in-Wonderland word: it means what you want it do.

As to why the referee changed her mind, I don't know. She saw nothing on the monitor to justify that.