On Nov 22, 9:15*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 08:55:21 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

The whole thing was a commie plot organised and financed from Moscow.

Ah, Harold Wilson.

Well, he was suspectedby MI5 of being a commie/subversive taking
orders from Moscow, so maybe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Wilson#MI5_plots.3F

On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 23:45:48 +0000, Arthur Figgis wrote:

Why are Siemens building trains and nobody in the UK?

Bombardier are building trains in the UK.

Aren't they about to lay off 1400 workers 'cause some rail company
in
the UK has signed a contract for rolling stock from Germany?

The short answer is "no", the long answer fills Modern Railways every
month.

I didn't think it would be, just headline grabbing. If Siemens order
books are full and the factory has liitle/no capacity left they won't
be that keen on tendering at sensible prices for other work. This
then gets tendered for by Bombardier who do have the factory and
order book space...

(and the government hasn't signed the contract in question yet anyway)

If they U turn on it just to give the work to a UK company the EU
won't like it, flat open market etc... this lot do seem to have a
habit of backtracking or dramatically altering course or the rules at
short notice thouugh.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 23/11/2011 07:38, harry wrote:
On Nov 22, 9:15 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 08:55:21 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

The whole thing was a commie plot organised and financed from Moscow.

Ah, Harold Wilson.

Well, he was suspectedby MI5 of being a commie/subversive taking
orders from Moscow, so maybe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Wilson#MI5_plots.3F

I had thought Wilson was supposed to be responsible for giving Rolls
Royce jet engines to the USSR but Wikipedia blames Stafford Cripps and
if the year was 1946 the date is probably too early for Wilson to have
been involved.


--
Roger Chapman

In article ,
Roger Chapman wrote:
On 23/11/2011 07:38, harry wrote:
On Nov 22, 9:15 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 08:55:21 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

The whole thing was a commie plot organised and financed from Moscow.

Ah, Harold Wilson.

Well, he was suspectedby MI5 of being a commie/subversive taking
orders from Moscow, so maybe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Wilson#MI5_plots.3F

I had thought Wilson was supposed to be responsible for giving Rolls
Royce jet engines to the USSR but Wikipedia blames Stafford Cripps and
if the year was 1946 the date is probably too early for Wilson to have
been involved.

he was a senior civil servant at the end of WW2 at the Ministry of Fuel &
Power and he became President of the Board of Trade in 1947. No - it wasn't
too early for him to be involved.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

In message o.uk, at
08:44:21 on Wed, 23 Nov 2011, Dave Liquorice
remarked:
Bombardier are building trains in the UK. Aren't they about to
lay off 1400 workers 'cause some rail company in the UK has signed
a contract for rolling stock from Germany?

The short answer is "no", the long answer fills Modern Railways every
month.

I didn't think it would be, just headline grabbing.

I think they will be laying them off, but not because of the Thameslink
order - which comes too late to save that particular set of workers,
1,000 of whom are temporary and presumably there to finish off the tail
end of whatever deliveries they do still have left, with all but one of
their existing contracts due to have been completed by now.
--
Roland Perry

On Nov 23, 10:07*am, Tim Streater wrote:

Yes this was just post war when we had jet engines and neither the Yanks
not the Russians did. I think Cripps sold them to both and at least the
Russians then copied them. These engines were what powered the Migs in
the Korean war, IIRC.

British jet engine designs were supplied to the US from 1942 onwards:
the P59 Airacomet was powered by a version of an early Whittle engine
license-built by GE, but GE fairly rapidly developed their own,
improved, engines. So it's untrue to say that the Americans didn't
have jet engines at the end of the war. The Russians essentially
copied German technology (Lyulka TR-1, first run in 1946) but later
copied Rolls Royce Derwents and others, which they were indeed sold,
but it's implausible that denying them Derwents would have held them
back for very long: jet engines of that era aren't hugely complex, and
the Russians had most of the German developers, tooling and designs.

ian

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

Tim Streater wrote:
If we're going to spend 20 billyun or so on
the railways, lets use it to remove choke points (like the Welwyn
viaduct) or make more lines 4-track from end to end. And improve the
west coast main line north of Stoke or Rugby or wherever it is that
they're still using wooden railway lines.

The first and most basic thing is to repair the collapsing bridges and
get rid of level crossings.

Then start building stations where cars and busses can get to them, i.e.
NOT on the middle of congested towns.

That too. If they'd had four tracks Cambridge to wherever, perhaps I
wouldn't have been staring out the office window at a freight train that
arrived at Cambridge station in the morning and spent all day in the
sidings waiting for a slot.


I believe there is a plan afoot to extend the Two tracks South of
Cambridge to four at some stage...


--
Tony Sayer

In message , tony sayer
writes
In article , Tim
Streater scribeth thus
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
If we're going to spend 20 billyun or so on
the railways, lets use it to remove choke points (like the Welwyn
viaduct) or make more lines 4-track from end to end. And improve the
west coast main line north of Stoke or Rugby or wherever it is that
they're still using wooden railway lines.

The first and most basic thing is to repair the collapsing bridges and
get rid of level crossings.

Then start building stations where cars and busses can get to them, i.e.
NOT on the middle of congested towns.

That too. If they'd had four tracks Cambridge to wherever, perhaps I
wouldn't have been staring out the office window at a freight train that
arrived at Cambridge station in the morning and spent all day in the
sidings waiting for a slot.


I believe there is a plan afoot to extend the Two tracks South of
Cambridge to four at some stage...

Yes.

I am anticipating interesting times with the disposal of soils arising
from the tunnelling either side of Digswell.

regards



--
Tim Lamb

On 23/11/2011 10:27, ian batten wrote:
On Nov 23, 10:07 am, Tim wrote:

Yes this was just post war when we had jet engines and neither the Yanks
not the Russians did. I think Cripps sold them to both and at least the
Russians then copied them. These engines were what powered the Migs in
the Korean war, IIRC.

British jet engine designs were supplied to the US from 1942 onwards:
the P59 Airacomet was powered by a version of an early Whittle engine
license-built by GE, but GE fairly rapidly developed their own,
improved, engines. So it's untrue to say that the Americans didn't
have jet engines at the end of the war. The Russians essentially
copied German technology (Lyulka TR-1, first run in 1946) but later
copied Rolls Royce Derwents and others, which they were indeed sold,
but it's implausible that denying them Derwents would have held them
back for very long: jet engines of that era aren't hugely complex, and
the Russians had most of the German developers, tooling and designs.

If Wikipedia is to be relied on the engines were the RR Nene and they
were a gift which the Russians quickly copied. Since the copy went on to
power the MIG 15 it is highly likely that German version wasn't up to much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Nene

Given that the designers of the Bell X-1 had early access to the
completed design of the Miles M52 but still chose to use a jet engine
the chances are that American jet engine technology at that time was
still not up to scratch.

--
Roger Chapman

Roger Chapman wrote:
On 23/11/2011 10:27, ian batten wrote:
On Nov 23, 10:07 am, Tim wrote:

Yes this was just post war when we had jet engines and neither the Yanks
not the Russians did. I think Cripps sold them to both and at least the
Russians then copied them. These engines were what powered the Migs in
the Korean war, IIRC.

British jet engine designs were supplied to the US from 1942 onwards:
the P59 Airacomet was powered by a version of an early Whittle engine
license-built by GE, but GE fairly rapidly developed their own,
improved, engines. So it's untrue to say that the Americans didn't
have jet engines at the end of the war. The Russians essentially
copied German technology (Lyulka TR-1, first run in 1946) but later
copied Rolls Royce Derwents and others, which they were indeed sold,
but it's implausible that denying them Derwents would have held them
back for very long: jet engines of that era aren't hugely complex, and
the Russians had most of the German developers, tooling and designs.

If Wikipedia is to be relied on the engines were the RR Nene and they
were a gift which the Russians quickly copied. Since the copy went on to
power the MIG 15 it is highly likely that German version wasn't up to much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Nene

Given that the designers of the Bell X-1 had early access to the
completed design of the Miles M52 but still chose to use a jet engine
the chances are that American jet engine technology at that time was
still not up to scratch.

BIG issues were materials technology.

Its one thing to copy the shape, its another to find the right steel for
compressor and turbine blades..

ITYM did NOT use a jet engine.

"The rocket propulsion system was a four-chamber engine built by
Reaction Motors, Inc., one of the first companies to build
liquid-propellant rocket engines in America. It burned ethyl alcohol
diluted with water and liquid oxygen. The thrust could be changed in
1,500 lbf (6,700 N) increments by firing one or more of the chambers. "

wiki

On 23/11/2011 08:59, charles wrote:
In ,
Roger wrote:
On 23/11/2011 07:38, harry wrote:
On Nov 22, 9:15 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 08:55:21 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

The whole thing was a commie plot organised and financed from Moscow.

Ah, Harold Wilson.

Well, he was suspectedby MI5 of being a commie/subversive taking
orders from Moscow, so maybe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Wilson#MI5_plots.3F

I had thought Wilson was supposed to be responsible for giving Rolls
Royce jet engines to the USSR but Wikipedia blames Stafford Cripps and
if the year was 1946 the date is probably too early for Wilson to have
been involved.

he was a senior civil servant at the end of WW2 at the Ministry of Fuel&
Power and he became President of the Board of Trade in 1947. No - it wasn't
too early for him to be involved.

Not exactly. He resigned as a civil servant in 1944 when selected as a
parliamentary candidate and occupied a university position until he
became an MP in July 1945. He was Parliamentary Secretary to the
Ministry of Works from then until July 1947 which doesn't seem to be a
position in which he could have had much influence over the decision to
give Stalin such a useful present.

--
Roger Chapman

On 23/11/2011 12:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Roger Chapman wrote:
On 23/11/2011 10:27, ian batten wrote:
On Nov 23, 10:07 am, Tim wrote:

Yes this was just post war when we had jet engines and neither the
Yanks
not the Russians did. I think Cripps sold them to both and at least the
Russians then copied them. These engines were what powered the Migs in
the Korean war, IIRC.

British jet engine designs were supplied to the US from 1942 onwards:
the P59 Airacomet was powered by a version of an early Whittle engine
license-built by GE, but GE fairly rapidly developed their own,
improved, engines. So it's untrue to say that the Americans didn't
have jet engines at the end of the war. The Russians essentially
copied German technology (Lyulka TR-1, first run in 1946) but later
copied Rolls Royce Derwents and others, which they were indeed sold,
but it's implausible that denying them Derwents would have held them
back for very long: jet engines of that era aren't hugely complex, and
the Russians had most of the German developers, tooling and designs.

If Wikipedia is to be relied on the engines were the RR Nene and they
were a gift which the Russians quickly copied. Since the copy went on
to power the MIG 15 it is highly likely that German version wasn't up
to much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Nene

Given that the designers of the Bell X-1 had early access to the
completed design of the Miles M52 but still chose to use a jet engine
the chances are that American jet engine technology at that time was
still not up to scratch.

BIG issues were materials technology.

Its one thing to copy the shape, its another to find the right steel for
compressor and turbine blades..

ISTR a TV program some time ago on the RR engine for MIGs theme which
had it that the Russian delegation visiting the RR engine factory had
special soles on their shoes or boots to pick up swarf from the machine
shop. All that careful planning wasted when a Communist sympathiser gave
them 25 complete engines to play with.


ITYM did NOT use a jet engine.


Quite right. Mea culpa, I meant to write rocket engine.

"The rocket propulsion system was a four-chamber engine built by
Reaction Motors, Inc., one of the first companies to build
liquid-propellant rocket engines in America. It burned ethyl alcohol
diluted with water and liquid oxygen. The thrust could be changed in
1,500 lbf (6,700 N) increments by firing one or more of the chambers. "

wiki


--
Roger Chapman

On Nov 23, 12:13*pm, Roger Chapman wrote:

Given that the designers of the Bell X-1 had early access to the
completed design of the Miles M52 but still chose to use a jet engine

The Bell X-1 wasn't powered by a jet engine.

ian

On 23/11/2011 11:41, Tim Lamb wrote:
I believe there is a plan afoot to extend the Two tracks South of
Cambridge to four at some stage...

Yes.

I am anticipating interesting times with the disposal of soils arising
from the tunnelling either side of Digswell.


Wikipedia doesn't have any dirt on Digswell so what is the problem with
the ground around Digswell?

Buncefield did cross my mind but that is Hemel Hempstead rather than
Welwyn Garden City.
--
Roger Chapman

In message , Roger Chapman
writes
On 23/11/2011 11:41, Tim Lamb wrote:
I believe there is a plan afoot to extend the Two tracks South of
Cambridge to four at some stage...

Yes.

I am anticipating interesting times with the disposal of soils arising
from the tunnelling either side of Digswell.


Wikipedia doesn't have any dirt on Digswell so what is the problem with
the ground around Digswell?

Buncefield did cross my mind but that is Hemel Hempstead rather than
Welwyn Garden City.

There is a nice railway viaduct with tunnels either side.

My farm backs on to an abandoned domestic waste site. The owners have
planning to tip 700,000m2 of inert waste if the District and County
Council abrogate the original closure agreement.

I don't see a problem if the waste comes here but there would be a
strong reaction from the villagers.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

On Nov 23, 8:50*am, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 23/11/2011 07:38, harry wrote:

On Nov 22, 9:15 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 08:55:21 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

The whole thing was a commie plot organised and financed from Moscow.

Ah, Harold Wilson.

Well, he was suspectedby MI5 of being a commie/subversive taking
orders from Moscow, so maybe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Wilson#MI5_plots.3F

I had thought Wilson was supposed to be responsible for giving Rolls
Royce jet engines to the USSR but Wikipedia blames Stafford Cripps and
if the year was 1946 the date is probably too early for Wilson to have
been involved.

--
Roger Chapman

http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-15

On 23/11/11 10:07, Tim Streater wrote:

Yes this was just post war when we had jet engines and neither the Yanks
not the Russians did.

How exactly were the Bell P-59 (1942-) and Lockheed P-80 (1944-)
powered, do you know?

Ian

The Real Doctor wrote:
On 23/11/11 10:07, Tim Streater wrote:

Yes this was just post war when we had jet engines and neither the Yanks
not the Russians did.

How exactly were the Bell P-59 (1942-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_P-59_Airacomet

and Lockheed P-80 (1944-)
powered, do you know?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockhee..._Shooting_Star

Ian

Graeme Wall wrote:

On 21/11/2011 17:55, Andy Burns wrote:

Graeme Wall wrote:

Specifically on F1, I don't know who puts the captions on, BBC or F1 TV,
I suspect the latter as they didn't change format when the coverage
switched from ITV to BBC. Again if it is F1 TV then they also have to
take into account sales to 4:3 areas.

But if it's a HD feed, surely that mandates 16:9, thye could have
different caption positions on for SD/4:3 and HD/16:9 feeds

There are no seperate feeds for 16:9 and 4:3 feeds, the conversion is
done at the end of the chain.

According to people who watched yesterday's F1 on RTL satellite, the
same captions *are* in 16:9 safe positions, rather than 4:3 safe
positions, so they *do* sell two streams ... and the BBC chooses to take
the 4:3 option.

On 28/11/2011 10:42, Andy Burns wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:

On 21/11/2011 17:55, Andy Burns wrote:

Graeme Wall wrote:

Specifically on F1, I don't know who puts the captions on, BBC or F1
TV,
I suspect the latter as they didn't change format when the coverage
switched from ITV to BBC. Again if it is F1 TV then they also have to
take into account sales to 4:3 areas.

But if it's a HD feed, surely that mandates 16:9, thye could have
different caption positions on for SD/4:3 and HD/16:9 feeds

There are no seperate feeds for 16:9 and 4:3 feeds, the conversion is
done at the end of the chain.

According to people who watched yesterday's F1 on RTL satellite, the
same captions *are* in 16:9 safe positions, rather than 4:3 safe
positions, so they *do* sell two streams ... and the BBC chooses to take
the 4:3 option.

There are always 2 streams from F1, their own complete programme and a
clean feed for other broadcasters. It will still be a 16:9 feed coming
from the F1 pres truck and the 4:3 (or 14:9) conversion will be done at
the BBC. What is probably happening is that the BBC are taking the F1
clean feed and inserting their own captions (which may well be a feed
direct from the F1 graphics truck). On the other had RTL may be taking
the clean feed and inserting their captions in 16:9, do they have their
own presentation team and interview cameras?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Graeme Wall wrote:

There are always 2 streams from F1, their own complete programme and a
clean feed for other broadcasters. It will still be a 16:9 feed coming
from the F1 pres truck and the 4:3 (or 14:9) conversion will be done at
the BBC. What is probably happening is that the BBC are taking the F1
clean feed and inserting their own captions (which may well be a feed
direct from the F1 graphics truck). On the other had RTL may be taking
the clean feed and inserting their captions in 16:9, do they have their
own presentation team and interview cameras?

Dunno, i don't have a multiple LNB setup (yet) but from the comments on
DigitalSpy, the graphics looked the same style as the ones seen on BBC,
except occuying different positions/areas of the screen.

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...&postcount=278

Am 28.11.2011 12:44, schrieb Graeme Wall:
On the other had RTL may be taking the clean feed and inserting their
captions in 16:9, do they have their own presentation team and interview
cameras?

Yes, RTL (the German service) does have their own presentation team
and intervew cameras.


Cheers,
L.W.

On 28/11/2011 13:51, Lüko Willms wrote:
Am 28.11.2011 12:44, schrieb Graeme Wall:
On the other had RTL may be taking the clean feed and inserting their
captions in 16:9, do they have their own presentation team and interview
cameras?

Yes, RTL (the German service) does have their own presentation team and
intervew cameras.



Does RTL normally transmit captions 4:3 safe or do they use the full
width (for non F1 programmes)?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail