Re: Railways

On 24 Apr, 10:12, Huge <H...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2007-04-24, Brian <brianwhiteh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On 23 Apr, 23:01, NM <never.ope...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Brian wrote:
On 23 Apr, 17:15, NM <never.ope...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Brian wrote:

Yup, I've been asking Northern Rail to replace "Rocket" on the
Manchester-Liverpool line for some time now - it is getting rather
long in the tooth, and sitting in the open air in third class is not
much fun ...
You are cheating, he said 100 years. that brings you into the heyday of
Gods Wonderful Railway, Star class 4-6-0's etc. and the early pacifics
on the east coast mainline.

I think Huge said 200 years, which would take us back to ... 1807.
He's quite right that nothing has changed in the technology since
then. 25kV overhead lines, 3 phase electric motors (don't even ask me
what they are), colour signalling and tilting trains are so 18th
century, yah?

What did you have 200 years ago, Horses wasn't it? 100 is correct but
that won't suit your point so lets ignore that shall we?-

It's not my point. Hugh said that rail is a 200 y old technology, not
me. I am saying that such a contention is i) incorrect; and ii)
irrelevant anyway.

Interesting to see that PT Weenies are quite keen on mindless literalism
except when talking about those works of fiction; railway timetables.

Surely the point is, though, that whether or not rail is 100, 200 or
1000 years old is irrelevant. As someone else has pointed out, modern
cars are in large part a refinement of some fairly old technology, but
that doesn't mean they are no good. Quite the opposite, in fact - the
length of development means they are now pretty reliable and user-
friendly.
So too for rail, the fact that trains have been around for a century
or two is neither here nor there. They evidently still have their
uses - pax numbers growing at 10% pa etc.

Anyway, I think you are confusing my sarcasm about "Rocket" with
mindless literalism. I will admit to Weenyish tendencies, though ...

.