On 04/12/2010 11:29, Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 03/12/2010 18:55, Vernon wrote:
....
Er no, in the Falklands the airport at MPA does not close, it has to
remain open. When it snows there, it can put down a foot or two in a
couple of hours....

Does it snow every year? Is there a military need to keep the airport
open? Do those factors apply in the UK?

Colin Bignell

It snows without warning, yes every year. Yes there is a need for the
airport to stay open.

If the cost of the disruption caused by snow is so high(and supposedly
it is), then yes UK airports, highways agencies, rail networks should
spend more money preventing a re-occurrence, it is not good enough to
say it is a one off event, and then spend no money preventing it
happening again. We do not need to spend vast sums of money, but simply
making some changes would have a big effect. I guess most companies put
profit first.

On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 09:48:35 +0000, Frank Erskine wrote:

On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 09:13:17 +0000, PeterC
wrote:

I was on a bus that was following a gritting lorry. The grit was mostly on
the nearside with only about a third of the offside receiving noticeable
distribution. This was a road just wide enough for 2 buses if they slowed
down.
It would be fairly easy, I'd have thought, to bias the throw and sense the
verges/kerbs and adjust the thrower to cover the road.

No - it makes sense to do one side of the road and the adjacent
footway, then the same on his return journey, so that footways and the
carriageway are treated.

Unfortunately this is the sort of road that gets done once; there are no
footways. The pattern to the nearside didn't seem to go far enough to do
much for a footway.
I wonder if there is some sort of adjustment for wider roads, especially
dual carriageways - the return journey could be 'interesting' for the outer
lane!
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Tractors don't do much work on farms at this time of year: They are
laid up in sheds and barns. Makes sense to use em.No investment
needed. Just fix the silly regs.

Which regs you thinking of? Tractors doing ploughing round here the last
couple of days.

theh above quote doesn't mention regs.

You can't plough frozen ground.

Adrian wrote:
On 03/12/2010 2:30 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tractors don't do much work on farms at this time of year: They are laid
up in sheds and barns.

The one that I followed down the lanes on Tuesday wasn't. It was towing
a large trailer full of livestock.

The farm loader that was broken down coming the other way wasn't laid
up, either. More's the pity.

OK we are essentially arable here, so no livestock to market stuff, and
the sugar beet is all 30 ton road going lorries once it's in the clamps.

However it doesn't affect the point that the winter is when you don't
see many tractors about.

ALSO tractors are allowed on roads for agricultural purposes only.

Once they are on there for non agricultural, different rules apply
apparently.

Adrian wrote:
On 03/12/2010 2:38 PM, Bob Eager wrote:
I don't know how much help the traction control and 4WD also gave him.

4wd will help if one end has grip (assuming a lockable centre diff).
Traction control won't do anything you can't do manually - if there's no
grip, you won't be moving, because it'll cut all power.

Not quite. My understanding is that it works more like a limited slip
diff -if one side starts spinning, it brakes it a bit to feed some power
to the other side. You snake a bit, but keep moving.

So lift off a bit - you keep moving.

Not if no LSD or wheel braking is in effect.

One spinning wheel robs power from all the others

I am not sure, but I think the land rovers of modern ilk have
automagically lockable front rear and center diffs if wheelspin is detected.

Huge wrote:
On 2010-12-03, Adrian wrote:
On 03/12/2010 2:30 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tractors don't do much work on farms at this time of year: They are laid
up in sheds and barns.

Awww, bless. TNP extending his utter ignorance into yet another field.


I live surrounded by farms.

I am not ignorant of what goes on. I spend many interesting hours
uderstanding framing, because the manager and tractor driver is always
in for coffee when he is working the land.

He isn't working it right now. He usually oes on holiday in Jan/Feb
because there is little TO do.

Agreed its an arable, not livestock farm.

But we have livestock nearby - stud farms. THEY are not using their
lifters and loaders much either..a little feed shifting and muck shifting.

The one that I followed down the lanes on Tuesday wasn't. It was towing
a large trailer full of livestock.

The farm loader that was broken down coming the other way wasn't laid
up, either. More's the pity.

Malcolm was spreading something (fertiliser?) on the winter wheat a
few days ago. Since the ground's frozen they can get a tractor on it,
which they couldn't if the temperature was above freezing, because it
would be too soggy.


Not too much point spraying or spreading when the stuff wont get
absorbed. We use mainly liquid sprays here, so not good sub zero.
Powdering works though.

But I never said 'no work' just 'not much work' Compared with ploughing
or harvesting. spraying or dressing is very fast.

But then you always prefer to let your prejudice put words into my mouth
don't you?

Vernon wrote:
On 04/12/2010 11:29, Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 03/12/2010 18:55, Vernon wrote:
....
Er no, in the Falklands the airport at MPA does not close, it has to
remain open. When it snows there, it can put down a foot or two in a
couple of hours....

Does it snow every year? Is there a military need to keep the airport
open? Do those factors apply in the UK?

Colin Bignell

It snows without warning, yes every year. Yes there is a need for the
airport to stay open.

If the cost of the disruption caused by snow is so high(and supposedly
it is), then yes UK airports, highways agencies, rail networks should
spend more money preventing a re-occurrence, it is not good enough to
say it is a one off event, and then spend no money preventing it
happening again. We do not need to spend vast sums of money, but simply
making some changes would have a big effect. I guess most companies put
profit first.

Thats precisely what the government is doing: reviewing te situation.
BUT as has been pointed out, this is very unusual weather. More to be
expected Jan/Feb, and more on the continent, which is also in travel chaos.

Its apparently a very extreme la Nina event that's ****ed with the jet
stream. Probably as a result of global warming.

Long range rumours are vile till post Xmas, then a bit warmer than
average late winter/spring.

On 04/12/10 16:24, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Long range rumours are vile till post Xmas, then a bit warmer than
average late winter/spring.

Motto - stock up with plenty in the cupboard and get the coal/logs
stocked up...

--
Tim Watts

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Nightjar \"cpb\"@"
"insertmysurnamehere saying something like:

Brighton and Hove found out last year that the hills
defeated their conventional gritting lorries, so they ordered a new
fleet that are adapted to grit their own path.

And what did I ask in that vein at the beginning of the year?
I'm amazed it wasn't done as a matter of course.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tractors don't do much work on farms at this time of year: They
are laid up in sheds and barns. Makes sense to use em.No investment
needed. Just fix the silly regs.
Which regs you thinking of? Tractors doing ploughing round here
the last couple of days.
theh above quote doesn't mention regs.

You can't plough frozen ground.

Sorry - I meant tractors doing *snow* ploughing.

You said above "Just fix the silly regs" and hence my question, but I
think you answered that in another post - red diesel etc.

Right... cleared that one up then ;-)

Was what a farmer on the beeb said.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Tim Streater
saying something like:

Buckle the front end, I should think, or more likely make the node dip
and the rear wheels leave the ground. Tractors are *designed* to have
that sort of thing attached at the front, so no wonder its tractors,
which will have better grip anyway, which do the work.

You seem to be confusing manly proper Landies of fond memory with the
latest crop of effete 4x4s.

Defender is still pretty much the basic landy, but refined a bit.

apart from the tyres on it, it would do anything the series III would
do, better.

If I had had v pattern tractor tyres on it, it would have been the best
on all points.

In message , Vernon
writes

Yes but is it a waste of money? As I said earlier if all council
vehicles were capable of taking a plough, it would add a little to the
vehicle cost(how much is a bin lorry?). If each year the council bought
several ploughs, it would add little to the annual budget.

I think the problem is the same money, but in different columns (or
pockets!). We talk about millions wasted, or lost, by the bad weather,
but by whom? Not the local authorities who would have the expense of
the additional equipment. Doubtless LAs would see themselves spending
money from a tight budget, to save money for everyone else, so cannot
justify the expense.
--
Graeme

On 04/12/2010 19:41, Graeme wrote:
In message , Vernon
writes

Yes but is it a waste of money? As I said earlier if all council
vehicles were capable of taking a plough, it would add a little to the
vehicle cost(how much is a bin lorry?). If each year the council
bought several ploughs, it would add little to the annual budget.

I think the problem is the same money, but in different columns (or
pockets!). We talk about millions wasted, or lost, by the bad weather,
but by whom? Not the local authorities who would have the expense of the
additional equipment. Doubtless LAs would see themselves spending money
from a tight budget, to save money for everyone else, so cannot justify
the expense.


This is the main problem, ie "not my problem" as we have devolved power
from central government outwards, so responsibility goes with it.

If we are talking about public highways, then the problem is one of
which pot of cash funds what. It is clear that where the highways agency
is responsible, roads are cleared fairly effectively, although there
have been some failures there, which can be addressed by central
government funding. Just give less foreign aid to compensate. Local
roads are a difficult one, as again they are important if people are to
get to work. So should business rates increase to cover the extra costs?

Of course if you look at airports (or railways), then I would say they
should fund their own equipment, if it costs more then no doubt landing
fees etc will increase too. But if the airport is open more as a result,
then everyone is a winner including the airlines.

Vernon wrote:
On 04/12/2010 19:41, Graeme wrote:
In message , Vernon
writes

Yes but is it a waste of money? As I said earlier if all council
vehicles were capable of taking a plough, it would add a little to the
vehicle cost(how much is a bin lorry?). If each year the council
bought several ploughs, it would add little to the annual budget.

I think the problem is the same money, but in different columns (or
pockets!). We talk about millions wasted, or lost, by the bad weather,
but by whom? Not the local authorities who would have the expense of the
additional equipment. Doubtless LAs would see themselves spending money
from a tight budget, to save money for everyone else, so cannot justify
the expense.


This is the main problem, ie "not my problem" as we have devolved power
from central government outwards, so responsibility goes with it.


That's not the problem: that's the solution.

It means its your local elected council and the appointed £1/4 million a
year execeutive ****face that runs it that you can potentially clear out
by local elections.

Not a bunch of whitehall morons who are untouchable by mere mortals.

If we are talking about public highways, then the problem is one of
which pot of cash funds what. It is clear that where the highways agency
is responsible, roads are cleared fairly effectively, although there
have been some failures there, which can be addressed by central
government funding. Just give less foreign aid to compensate. Local
roads are a difficult one, as again they are important if people are to
get to work. So should business rates increase to cover the extra costs?


Its very simple. If central government clears away red tape surrounding
subcontractors doing it, it needs no extra workforce at all: or capital
investment. Just a pot of cash to do the job when its needed.

I heard today that the guvmint is allowing truck drivers to blow their
daily hours quotas over the next 4 days. What sanity! That law is to
prevent persistent abuse of hours, not stop emergency deliveries.


Of course if you look at airports (or railways), then I would say they
should fund their own equipment, if it costs more then no doubt landing
fees etc will increase too. But if the airport is open more as a result,
then everyone is a winner including the airlines.

No airport can stay open 254x7x52 .. adverse weather will always affect
flights. Its simply that whining public people expect everything to
'just work'

Te cost of heated runways etc would be massively reflected in airport
cgharges..and as has been pointed out landing into a bank of fog created
by it, is no solution.

ploughs and salt do what they can, but there are simply limits to what
CAN be done.

Ships wont dock in a gale either.

On 04/12/2010 22:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Vernon wrote:
On 04/12/2010 19:41, Graeme wrote:
In message , Vernon
writes

Yes but is it a waste of money? As I said earlier if all council
vehicles were capable of taking a plough, it would add a little to the
vehicle cost(how much is a bin lorry?). If each year the council
bought several ploughs, it would add little to the annual budget.

I think the problem is the same money, but in different columns (or
pockets!). We talk about millions wasted, or lost, by the bad weather,
but by whom? Not the local authorities who would have the expense of the
additional equipment. Doubtless LAs would see themselves spending money
from a tight budget, to save money for everyone else, so cannot justify
the expense.


This is the main problem, ie "not my problem" as we have devolved
power from central government outwards, so responsibility goes with it.


That's not the problem: that's the solution.

It means its your local elected council and the appointed £1/4 million a
year execeutive ****face that runs it that you can potentially clear out
by local elections.

Not a bunch of whitehall morons who are untouchable by mere mortals.

If we are talking about public highways, then the problem is one of
which pot of cash funds what. It is clear that where the highways
agency is responsible, roads are cleared fairly effectively, although
there have been some failures there, which can be addressed by central
government funding. Just give less foreign aid to compensate. Local
roads are a difficult one, as again they are important if people are
to get to work. So should business rates increase to cover the extra
costs?


Its very simple. If central government clears away red tape surrounding
subcontractors doing it, it needs no extra workforce at all: or capital
investment. Just a pot of cash to do the job when its needed.

I heard today that the guvmint is allowing truck drivers to blow their
daily hours quotas over the next 4 days. What sanity! That law is to
prevent persistent abuse of hours, not stop emergency deliveries.


Of course if you look at airports (or railways), then I would say they
should fund their own equipment, if it costs more then no doubt
landing fees etc will increase too. But if the airport is open more as
a result, then everyone is a winner including the airlines.

No airport can stay open 254x7x52 .. adverse weather will always affect
flights. Its simply that whining public people expect everything to
'just work'

Te cost of heated runways etc would be massively reflected in airport
cgharges..and as has been pointed out landing into a bank of fog created
by it, is no solution.

ploughs and salt do what they can, but there are simply limits to what
CAN be done.

Ships wont dock in a gale either.



I agree, although the current thinking from those that can change things
seems to be, do nothing (its cheap) and in a couple of weeks people will
forget about it.

Where we live they have recently moved from 4 or 5 councils to one
super-council, that brings efficiency savings. Well no we live at one
end of the county with the council offices at the other, as a result we
get no satisfaction. I spoke to one of the local council managers the
other day, and he had sent a couple of people to get salt, to grit the
local roads, when they got to the depot they were refused the salt by a
senior manager from HQ. I have fired off a toxic email to my "locally"
elected official and advised neighbours to do the same. We have council
elections in May this year, and I have made my position clear, it is the
only way things will change. Just a shame that we cannot also vote for
the council head. It would be interesting to see what would change when
they realise they could be unemployed.

Vernon wrote:
On 04/12/2010 22:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Vernon wrote:
On 04/12/2010 19:41, Graeme wrote:
In message , Vernon
writes

Yes but is it a waste of money? As I said earlier if all council
vehicles were capable of taking a plough, it would add a little to the
vehicle cost(how much is a bin lorry?). If each year the council
bought several ploughs, it would add little to the annual budget.

I think the problem is the same money, but in different columns (or
pockets!). We talk about millions wasted, or lost, by the bad weather,
but by whom? Not the local authorities who would have the expense of
the
additional equipment. Doubtless LAs would see themselves spending money
from a tight budget, to save money for everyone else, so cannot justify
the expense.


This is the main problem, ie "not my problem" as we have devolved
power from central government outwards, so responsibility goes with it.


That's not the problem: that's the solution.

It means its your local elected council and the appointed £1/4 million a
year execeutive ****face that runs it that you can potentially clear out
by local elections.

Not a bunch of whitehall morons who are untouchable by mere mortals.

If we are talking about public highways, then the problem is one of
which pot of cash funds what. It is clear that where the highways
agency is responsible, roads are cleared fairly effectively, although
there have been some failures there, which can be addressed by central
government funding. Just give less foreign aid to compensate. Local
roads are a difficult one, as again they are important if people are
to get to work. So should business rates increase to cover the extra
costs?


Its very simple. If central government clears away red tape surrounding
subcontractors doing it, it needs no extra workforce at all: or capital
investment. Just a pot of cash to do the job when its needed.

I heard today that the guvmint is allowing truck drivers to blow their
daily hours quotas over the next 4 days. What sanity! That law is to
prevent persistent abuse of hours, not stop emergency deliveries.


Of course if you look at airports (or railways), then I would say they
should fund their own equipment, if it costs more then no doubt
landing fees etc will increase too. But if the airport is open more as
a result, then everyone is a winner including the airlines.

No airport can stay open 254x7x52 .. adverse weather will always affect
flights. Its simply that whining public people expect everything to
'just work'

Te cost of heated runways etc would be massively reflected in airport
cgharges..and as has been pointed out landing into a bank of fog created
by it, is no solution.

ploughs and salt do what they can, but there are simply limits to what
CAN be done.

Ships wont dock in a gale either.



I agree, although the current thinking from those that can change things
seems to be, do nothing (its cheap) and in a couple of weeks people will
forget about it.

A sound management practice. Masterful inactivity.

When I look back at all the hot issues that I used to have to deal with,
only one in ten proved to be a topic that lasted more than one or two
monthly meetings in a row.

One lasted 18 months 'Can we have a second file server' After 18 months,
we had screwed the max out of teh one we had, so I said 'yes'

"What caused you to change your mind?"
"I haven't changed my mind: merely noted that the cost benefit
optimisation has swung in favour of a new server now, after 18 months of
you actually managing with one".



Where we live they have recently moved from 4 or 5 councils to one
super-council, that brings efficiency savings. Well no we live at one
end of the county with the council offices at the other, as a result we
get no satisfaction. I spoke to one of the local council managers the
other day, and he had sent a couple of people to get salt, to grit the
local roads, when they got to the depot they were refused the salt by a
senior manager from HQ. I have fired off a toxic email to my "locally"
elected official and advised neighbours to do the same. We have council
elections in May this year, and I have made my position clear, it is the
only way things will change. Just a shame that we cannot also vote for
the council head. It would be interesting to see what would change when
they realise they could be unemployed.

If only councils were run as profit and loss centres, rather than as
fixed income 'how can we spend it' budget places, we might see saner
decisions.

We dealt with things better in the 60's because no one expected the
government to be able to do anything. So people cleared their paths,
gritted their drives..I mean last year someone said 'I cant get out of
my drive'!

Well dear, try digging the snow away. And putting some salt on it.

Of course in those days of coal, we all had a shovel and lots of cinders.

And lots of warm clothes and ex-army blankets, ALL of which went into
the car boot. If you had a car.

On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 13:32:21 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Nightjar \"cpb\"@"
"insertmysurnamehere saying something like:

Brighton and Hove found out last year that the hills
defeated their conventional gritting lorries, so they ordered a new
fleet that are adapted to grit their own path.

And what did I ask in that vein at the beginning of the year? I'm
amazed it wasn't done as a matter of course.

So how were B&H gritting their hills prior to last year then? Or perhaps
they weren't.

There have always been a few impassable hills; I guess they are now
trying to fix those. Braybon Avenue and Bear Road come to mind...

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 05/12/2010 13:32, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Nightjar \"cpb\"@"
"insertmysurnamehere saying something like:

Brighton and Hove found out last year that the hills defeated their
conventional gritting lorries, so they ordered a new fleet that are
adapted to grit their own path.

And what did I ask in that vein at the beginning of the year?
I'm amazed it wasn't done as a matter of course.

So how were B&H gritting their hills prior to last year then? Or perhaps
they weren't.

I suspect they used the sort of vehicle TMH talks about - flat bed
trucks that can have a gritting attachment fitted at the back. In most
years, when they only need to put grit down in advance of an occasional
ice warning, that is not a problem, as they are out and about before the
ice. It is only when they need to grit aafter the ice has formed that
they need a lorry that spreads the grit under its own wheels. However,
they are usually specialist vehicles that do nothing for most of the
year, unlike the convertable type.

Colin Bignell

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes

I mean last year someone said 'I cant get out of my drive'!
Well dear, try digging the snow away. And putting some salt on it.

Reminds me of a phone call received during the worst of the snow last
winter. Dozy woman calling to complain that she had not received any
mail for a few days. I politely explained that the posties were making
every effort to reach all accessible addresses, but, in the event of a
problem, she was welcome to collect her mail from the PO. I can't do
that, she said. Why not?, says I. We're snowed in ...

Phone call yesterday from another woman, complaining about no mail, so I
speak to the postie. No, he says. Remote track, not cleared, cannot
get there. Explained to woman, who insisted access was OK. She knew,
because her husband had got down the track in his tractor. WTF do these
people think the posties have as vehicles?
--
Graeme, sub postmaster, rural NE Scotland

In article ,
says...

In article ,
Terry Casey wrote:

The new third-rail supports have to be beside the rail itself - the outside,
away from the running rail, obviously. There is also enough room to position
the new rail further away from the running rail.

Is there though? That might work in most places where the 3rd rail is to
the left of the train - what about if its between the two tracks? Or if
there's 4 tracks?


Don't forget that the trains themselves are much wider ~9ft (2750mm) than the track. The
track gauge is only 4ft 8 1/2in (1435mm), so there is quite a bit of overhang.

The centre of the third rail is 1' 4" (405mm) from the inside face of the adjacent
running rail so where there are short overlapping lengths of 3rd rail on both sides of
the track they are on ~7' 4" (2245mm) centres - in other words, there is still a fair bit
of room left!

The spacing between running tracks 'the six foot' is ~6' 6" (1970mm) measured between the
outside faces of the running rails so there is no problem with any multiple track
sections (which most railways are!)

--

Terry

Terry Casey wrote:

In article ,
says...

But you'd have to explain where the billyuns needed to convert hundreds
of trains and thousands of miles of track is coming from, and, more
importantly, what your transition plan is, given that your train can run
on the one sort of line or the other - but not both.

The new third-rail supports have to be beside the rail itself - the outside, away from
the running rail, obviously. There is also enough room to position the new rail further
away from the running rail.

It might be possibly, therefore, to mount shoes for the new system on existing stock
without removing the existing gear and install the new third rail alongside the existing.

Stock with modified shoes would use the new collection system, where available, but all
stock could use all of the track. The old third rail would be removed when the changeover
is complete.

Having been involved in detail with collector systems, I have to
say that there is far more to be considered than you seem to
appreciate.

What you need to be sure of is that the collector will always
remain within its permitted space envelope, never foul track or
trackside equipment, yet always make adequate contact with the
conductor rail where it is present. This has to be true for track
and train at the limits of their design tolerances, and taking
account of dynamic movements and wear.

With your proposal, you now have to do this for two systems at
the same time. Even for existing systems, this is quite tricky,
and so tight are the requirements that the primary suspension
travel (that between wheelset and bogie) cannot be allowed to
affect the pickup position.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Graeme
saying something like:

Phone call yesterday from another woman, complaining about no mail, so I
speak to the postie. No, he says. Remote track, not cleared, cannot
get there. Explained to woman, who insisted access was OK. She knew,
because her husband had got down the track in his tractor. WTF do these
people think the posties have as vehicles?

Why on earth doesn't she have a drop-box at the end of the track?