In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Unions are a very good idea in any well run industry. Allowing management
a convenient way to negotiate etc with their workforce. As all the
successful companies know only too well.



Well a very few places where I've worked in the past they didn't have
Unions as they were very well run companies. And if a company is well
run there're shouldn't be a need for a Union thats just a needed
response to the **** poor management that sometimes still prevails...

How do you explain to each and every member of staff in a large company
how any pay rise etc is arrived at? By letter?
Also, a member of staff with a grievance or whatever is likely being
happier talking it over with a colleague who is a member of that union
rather than a manager. The rep can then put across the point - likely
without the heat of the previous scenario.

Of course none of that would be needed with a perfectly run company. But
being run by humans, most unlikely.

--
*Some days we are the flies; some days we are the windscreen.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:27:00 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

I do not care how the countryside feels one iota. I was looking around in
Herts and saw a large green area that few went to, with a rail line running
through and the odd B road there. The rail line could have been dropped
into a cut & cover trunnel and a new village built over. Surface rail lines
divide a community. That is whay sopme are on the ouskirst of a
village/town. Run the lines under for 1/2 miles or so quite cheaply with an
undergound station, keeping the place together. A station pops up in the
vibrant "centre". So easy to do. So easy to spread out.

So easy to flood.
Idiot.

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
"The advanced battery technology allows the car to be driven for around
14 miles on its electric power alone with no tailpipe emissions and
zero fuel consumption.

Once Prius Plug-in Hybrid has reached the limits of its electric range,
it switches seamlessly to its full hybrid system, bringing the petrol
engine into play. This means the driver can avoid the range anxiety
associated with all-electric vehicles.

Did you see that Top Gear where they drove a Pious round their test track
as fast as it would go (ie slowly) and followed it with a BMW M3? (The M3
has the poorest fuel consumption of the 3 series range.)

The Pious used considerably more fuel...

--
*I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:43:17 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth
wrote:

Cobblers. The Atkinson cycle does not improve efficiency at low rpm. It is
designed to maximise efficiency at a given, constant rpm which for the
Pious is IIRC around 3k rpm.

Quite. Just like genset engines - cam timing and breathing optimised
for a given rev range.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
"The advanced battery technology allows the car to be driven for around
14 miles on its electric power alone with no tailpipe emissions and
zero fuel consumption.

Once Prius Plug-in Hybrid has reached the limits of its electric range,
it switches seamlessly to its full hybrid system, bringing the petrol
engine into play. This means the driver can avoid the range anxiety
associated with all-electric vehicles.

Did you see that Top Gear where they drove a Pious round their test track
as fast as it would go (ie slowly) and followed it with a BMW M3? (The M3
has the poorest fuel consumption of the 3 series range.)

The Pious used considerably more fuel...

It was a pointless test though, all it showed was using a vehicle in a way
that it's not designed to be used results in less than optimum performance.


Tim

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:09:57 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

Maglev is now mature enough indeed. The points for Maglev are so strong

Points are one of the major problems.

Nonsense.
You get the OMGlev up to max speed and leap over crossing traffic from
a launch ramp - drivers will undergo a course at
www.maxspeedandthrills.com moto-x school.

In article
,
Tim wrote:
Did you see that Top Gear where they drove a Pious round their test
track as fast as it would go (ie slowly) and followed it with a BMW
M3? (The M3 has the poorest fuel consumption of the 3 series range.)

The Pious used considerably more fuel...

It was a pointless test though, all it showed was using a vehicle in a
way that it's not designed to be used results in less than optimum
performance.

So it's not designed to be driven fast or even enthusiastically? Figures.

--
*If we weren't meant to eat animals, why are they made of meat?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"funkyoldcortina" wrote in message
...

But the Prius is really intended for the US market, although it's sold
everywhere. Americans just don't buy diesel cars in any great numbers,
they don't like them. In the UK, the main use of the latest Prius is
as a company car. They are popular because the tax benefits are huge
compared to regular petrol or diesel cars, and you get a lot of kit
included in the price (cruise control, reversing camera, sat nav etc).
I don't think most of those drivers give two hoots about the green
credentials (but they might find the higher than average MPG a bonus).

Good post.

Kiss of death for anything.

--
*I don't have a solution, but I admire your problem. *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article
,
Tim wrote:
Did you see that Top Gear where they drove a Pious round their test
track as fast as it would go (ie slowly) and followed it with a BMW
M3? (The M3 has the poorest fuel consumption of the 3 series range.)

The Pious used considerably more fuel...

It was a pointless test though, all it showed was using a vehicle in a
way that it's not designed to be used results in less than optimum
performance.

So it's not designed to be driven fast or even enthusiastically? Figures.

What's your point, other than stating the obvious?

I mean, deriding the Prius for not being good at something it was never
designed for comes across as petty point scoring.

A bit like mocking a supercar for being poor in London traffic. An
observation so obvious as to be pointless.

Tim

Tim

Doctor Drivel wrote:

They can be charged from the mains for next to nothing or use the
on-board range extender. At 60 miles range many people will actually
use the range extender.

You need a 60 mile extension lead to do 60 miles just using electricity
..--
Adam

Andy Champ wrote:
On 22/12/2011 08:40, Doctor Drivel wrote:

But I see everyone forgets the Chevy Volt. In fact no one mentions
it except me.

http://www.chevrolet.co.uk/cars/volt/

It isn't for sale in the UK. That web site says it'll be on sale in
Europe later this year though - which I guess means next week as there
isn't much year left.

It has a 1.4L petrol range extending generator. Some of us might call that a
petrol engine:-)

--
Adam

In article
,
Tim wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article
,
Tim wrote:
Did you see that Top Gear where they drove a Pious round their test
track as fast as it would go (ie slowly) and followed it with a BMW
M3? (The M3 has the poorest fuel consumption of the 3 series range.)

The Pious used considerably more fuel...

It was a pointless test though, all it showed was using a vehicle in a
way that it's not designed to be used results in less than optimum
performance.

So it's not designed to be driven fast or even enthusiastically? Figures.

What's your point, other than stating the obvious?

I mean, deriding the Prius for not being good at something it was never
designed for comes across as petty point scoring.

You miss the point. It claims to be economical under all conditions. Which
is simply isn't. If you load it reasonably fully and just drive so you
keep up with motorway traffic the mpg becomes much worse than pretty well
any other car of similar size and performance.

A bit like mocking a supercar for being poor in London traffic. An
observation so obvious as to be pointless.

Do Ferrari claim their cars are super economical in town?

If the Pious was sold as a town only car - as it is in the US - all that
would then matter is the high price.

--
*How can I miss you if you won't go away?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
ARWadsworth wrote:
And it left the miners able to hold the country to ransom. They
brought down the previous Conservative government, they tried it on
with Mrs T and she was stronger and smarter.

Perhaps we need her back to do the same with the financial
institutions.

Good idea. But miners were working class who never voted for her,
minded classy snob oriented people voted for her.

The miners did vote for her in the 1983 election just after the Falklands
conflict.

--
Adam

Doctor Drivel wrote:

And it left the miners able to hold the country to ransom. They
brought down the previous Conservative government,

They never. Heath couldn't handle industry properly. Lack of
investment, poor management, etc, etc. Miners were poorly paid
working in appalling conditions.

Again..
"It was NOT subsidised. Coal created economic growth. Coal provided
the energy to create electricity. The economic growth was cycled
back to get the energy. Understand that."

Coal mining in the UK was not profitable.

--
Adam

charles wrote:
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
charles wrote:
It's quite telling that when rolling stock needs to be moved around for
maintenance work or refurbishment, they often find it cheaper to move it
by road rather than rail.


which shows that someone has got the costing of road transport wrong.
After all, that too is "subsidised by the taxayer".

The taxes paid by road users far exceed the amount spent on the road
network. In effect, road users subsidise the rail network, the NHS.....

remember that all the non-trunk roads are paid for by the relevant local
authority, not out of central funds. Once upon a time - when I first had a
car - the "road fund licence" was collected by the local authority. It was
subsequently 'nationalised'.


Remember that local authorities get massive handouts from the treasury for
the roads. Then they spend the money on lesbian cooperatives.

In article
,
Steve Firth wrote:
Then they spend the money on lesbian cooperatives.

That's an oxymoron if there ever was one.

--
*He who laughs last, thinks slowest.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Doctor Drivel wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:27:00 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

I do not care how the countryside feels one iota. I was looking
around in Herts and saw a large green area that few went to, with a
rail line running
through and the odd B road there. The rail line could have been
dropped into a cut & cover trunnel and a new village built over. Surface
rail lines
divide a community. That is whay sopme are on the ouskirst of a
village/town. Run the lines under for 1/2 miles or so quite
cheaply with an
undergound station, keeping the place together. A station pops up
in the vibrant "centre". So easy to do. So easy to spread out.

So easy to flood.

You put drainage in ****wit. Otherwise no tunnels would have been
built. Duh!

I wonder where the Channel Tunnel drains go to. Australia?

--
Adam

"funkyoldcortina" wrote in message
...

That's not true for the Prius. You still get better mpg than a
conventional petrol car on motorway trips, as once you're up to speed you
can ease off the pedal and the electric motor does most of the work to
keep you at-speed, requiring much lower power output from the engine.

Well that's plain rubbish.
If the electric motor is doing the work then it has to get its energy from
somewhere.
It can't be the battery or it would go flat.
If its from the alternator then its the engine that's driving that.
How can you get better efficiency by driving the alternator to make
electricity and then using that electricity to drive the motor rather than
using a fixed ratio gear?

charles wrote:
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:

The taxes paid by road users far exceed the amount spent on the road
network. In effect, road users subsidise the rail network, the NHS.....

remember that all the non-trunk roads are paid for by the relevant local
authority, not out of central funds. Once upon a time - when I first had a
car - the "road fund licence" was collected by the local authority. It was
subsequently 'nationalised'.

It doesn't matter who is doing the spending, it's still far less than
road users pay. Add up the *total* amount spent on all UK roads in a
year. Add up the total amount paid in fuel taxes and VED by UK road
users in a year. Subtract the former from the latter, and there is a
*lot* left over.

The surplus is used to pay part of the rail subsidies, the NHS,
Education, Social Security.... (It goes into the general taxation budget)

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article
,
Tim wrote:

I mean, deriding the Prius for not being good at something it was never
designed for comes across as petty point scoring.

You miss the point. It claims to be economical under all conditions.

But does it? If it did, that would be stupid but I can't see that phrase on
their website.

Tim

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"hugh" ] wrote in message
news
Plus the NMU under Scargill insisted that all pits were kept open
whether economic or not.

They were "all" economic as they crated economic growth which is not
qualified by the selling price of the coal, as London Tube's prices are
not qualified by the ticket price. Take away the Tube and London
collapses. Run on ticket sales only and most stations will close down
charging £12 per trip.

I see economics is your weak spot.
And I see it's a fantasy world for you.
--
hugh

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 17:51:18 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth
wrote:

Remember that local authorities get massive handouts from the treasury for
the roads. Then they spend the money on lesbian cooperatives.

I knew a cooperative lesbian. We need more of them.

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 12:35:55 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

Well a very few places where I've worked in the past they didn't have
Unions as they were very well run companies. And if a company is well
run there're shouldn't be a need for a Union thats just a needed
response to the **** poor management that sometimes still prevails...

Hmm... some of the worst companies I've worked for were non-union
places. Some of the unionised companies I've worked for were among the
best.
Of course, the reverse of both the above is also true, in my direct
experience.
So there - got any more generalisations?

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 16:49:07 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

divide a community. That is whay sopme are on the ouskirst of a
village/town. Run the lines under for 1/2 miles or so quite cheaply with
an
undergound station, keeping the place together. A station pops up in the
vibrant "centre". So easy to do. So easy to spread out.

So easy to flood.

You put drainage in ****wit. Otherwise no tunnels would have been built.
Duh!

Duh! What happens when the power and/or the pumps fail, yoiu fool?

In message

g, Steve Firth writes
charles wrote:
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
charles wrote:
It's quite telling that when rolling stock needs to be moved around for
maintenance work or refurbishment, they often find it cheaper to move it
by road rather than rail.


which shows that someone has got the costing of road transport wrong.
After all, that too is "subsidised by the taxayer".

The taxes paid by road users far exceed the amount spent on the road
network. In effect, road users subsidise the rail network, the NHS.....

remember that all the non-trunk roads are paid for by the relevant local
authority, not out of central funds. Once upon a time - when I first had a
car - the "road fund licence" was collected by the local authority. It was
subsequently 'nationalised'.


Remember that local authorities get massive handouts from the treasury for
the roads. Then they spend the money on lesbian cooperatives.


The lesbian co-operative equal opportunities roadbuilding association

--
geoff

Steve Firth wrote:
charles wrote:
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
charles wrote:
It's quite telling that when rolling stock needs to be moved
around for maintenance work or refurbishment, they often find it
cheaper to move it by road rather than rail.


which shows that someone has got the costing of road transport
wrong. After all, that too is "subsidised by the taxayer".

The taxes paid by road users far exceed the amount spent on the road
network. In effect, road users subsidise the rail network, the
NHS.....

remember that all the non-trunk roads are paid for by the relevant
local authority, not out of central funds. Once upon a time - when
I first had a car - the "road fund licence" was collected by the
local authority. It was subsequently 'nationalised'.


Remember that local authorities get massive handouts from the
treasury for the roads. Then they spend the money on lesbian
cooperatives.

If the money was spent on male homosexuals you could claim the money was
spent on a widening a dirt track.

--
Adam

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 15:47:46 +0000 (GMT) Dave Plowman (News) wrote :
It was a pointless test though, all it showed was using a vehicle in a
way that it's not designed to be used results in less than optimum
performance.

So it's not designed to be driven fast or even enthusiastically? Figures.

You need a minimal knowledge of these matters to know that a Prius will
shine in stop/start urban traffic and offers much less for faster non-stop
driving. But when I had mine on hire in June, the overall 62mpg included
drives from London to Bristol and Shropshire via motorways. But then I
drove it like a limousine, not a sports car. And yes, I realise that
driving in a restrained manner (not slow) manner would deliver significant
economy on many other cars too - but not in city traffic.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

And it left the miners able to hold the country to ransom. They
brought down the previous Conservative government,

They never. Heath couldn't handle industry properly. Lack of
investment, poor management, etc, etc. Miners were poorly paid
working in appalling conditions.

Again..
"It was NOT subsidised. Coal created economic growth. Coal provided
the energy to create electricity. The economic growth was cycled
back to get the energy. Understand that."

Coal mining in the UK was not profitable.

Idiot, again...
"It was NOT subsidised. Coal created economic growth. Coal provided the
energy to create electricity. The economic growth was cycled back to
get the energy. Understand that."

It cost more to dig the coal out than it could be sold for. The
government decided that it was worthwhile to pay the difference. This is
called a subsidy.

If the mining industry had not been subsidised in the 1970s (And
earlier), the pits would have been closed before they were. If the
unions and the government of the 1980s had been willing to compromise,
we would still be digging loats of coal out of the ground in the United
Kingdom. There are two centuries' worth of coal under the Potteries that
can no longer be mined because it was too expensive to mine ans sell in
a free market, and when the mines were closed, they were closed the
cheap way, making the coal inaccessible for the foreseeable future.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Doctor Drivel wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

They can be charged from the mains for next to nothing or use the
on-board range extender. At 60 miles range many people will
actually use the range extender.

You need a 60 mile extension lead to do 60 miles just using
electricity

Idiot, don't you know what a range extender is?

Is it a petrol engine?
--
Adam

On Dec 24, 8:11*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 16:49:07 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"

wrote:
divide a community. That is whay sopme are on the ouskirst of a
village/town. *Run the lines under for 1/2 miles or so quite cheaply with
an
undergound station, keeping the place together. A station pops up in the
vibrant "centre". *So easy to do. *So easy to spread out.

So easy to flood.

You put drainage in ****wit. *Otherwise no tunnels would have been built.
Duh!

Duh! What happens when the power and/or the pumps fail, yoiu fool?

There's lots of places need to be continuously pumped as well as
tunnels.
Every single tunnel under a river is pumped
http://www.severnsideforum.co.uk/severn%20tunnel.htm

In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Which in most cases is rarely used as they can be charged from the mains
very cheaply and goes 60 miles on electric only and can still do 100mph.

More nonsense from dribble. It may do either 100mph *or* 60 miles between
charges. But absolutely not both at the same time.
Then of course you have to add in heating or aircon. Both of which sap
enormous amounts of power. So the likely range in real world conditions
electric only will a fraction of the claimed maximum. Like every electric
car ever made.

--
*I yell because I care

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
It's common to give the very best MPG that can be achieved under ideal
conditions.

The Mk 3 Pirus get 75mpg in average driving.

This is a pure lie. As anyone who has ever driven one would know.

This is hard for senile fools to comprehend.

Even those of weak intellect such as you can usually use Google etc to
find some real world figures. Which gives an average of around 50 mpg.

--
*Everyone has a photographic memory. Some don't have film *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

And it left the miners able to hold the country to ransom. They
brought down the previous Conservative government,

They never. Heath couldn't handle industry properly. Lack of
investment, poor management, etc, etc. Miners were poorly paid
working in appalling conditions.

Again..
"It was NOT subsidised. Coal created economic growth. Coal provided
the energy to create electricity. The economic growth was cycled
back to get the energy. Understand that."

Coal mining in the UK was not profitable.

Idiot, again...
"It was NOT subsidised. Coal created economic growth. Coal provided
the energy to create electricity. The economic growth was cycled
back to get the energy. Understand that."

It cost more to dig the coal out than it could be sold for.

Not another one. If London Underground was run on ticket sales only half
would be closed down and tickets would be £20 a go. London,
economically would decline rapidly.

Which is why the government pay the operator of the Undergound and,
indeed all public transport in London and pay them what is known to
everybody except you as a subsidy.

Fares (Or selling cost of coal or any other goods) plus *subsidy* equals
operating costs, why do you find this so hard to understand?

In the early days of the coal and rail industry, the owners of the asset
charged whatever they wished, and until that cost came down, development
was stalled. Manchester did not become a major industrial centre until
the Duke of Bridgwater invested *his* money in a canal to deliver *his*
coal. No subsidy there. He didn't do it for the greater good, he did it
to make a profit. It was the same with the early railways, the
turnpikes, the canals...

Nowadays, the government is a partner in providing all transport links,
paying for them out of taxes and the surplus generated by payments made
by the users.

I suspect you are one of the million people who buy the Star because the
Sun is beyond their reading skills.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
The Prius was designed to reduce kerbside emissions in Choking Japanese
cities - 1997 - and worked brilliantly. It also applies to other cities
as well, like all of them.

It was designed for California.

The Prius is also brilliant to drive. - seamless, no step up or down
gear changes. Passengers love it.

Many of your lies are at least plausible, but you having passengers in a
car?

--
*It's lonely at the top, but you eat better.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 23:43:36 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

Idiot, don't you know what a range extender is?

www.viagra.com

On 24/12/2011 20:57, Tony Bryer wrote:
You need a minimal knowledge of these matters to know that a Prius will
shine in stop/start urban traffic and offers much less for faster non-stop
driving. But when I had mine on hire in June, the overall 62mpg included
drives from London to Bristol and Shropshire via motorways. But then I
drove it like a limousine, not a sports car. And yes, I realise that
driving in a restrained manner (not slow) manner would deliver significant
economy on many other cars too - but not in city traffic.

Tony,
what do you mean by "drove it like a limousine" on the motorway? From
what I've seen Limos go up the motorway at the same speed as all the
other traffic - not quite fast enough to interest Plod.

There's not a lot of acceleration going on that would be different
between Limo and sports car.

Andy

In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Not so. First sales were in Japan. The style of the Mk 1 was clearly
Japanese focused.

Style? That's a novel name for a train wreck.

--
*When companies ship Styrofoam, what do they pack it in? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Not so. First sales were in Japan. The style of the Mk 1 was clearly
Japanese focused.

Style? That's a novel name for a train wreck.

they award points for it in synchronised drowning.

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 05:53:26 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

There's lots of places need to be continuously pumped as well as
tunnels.
Every single tunnel under a river is pumped
http://www.severnsideforum.co.uk/severn%20tunnel.htm

I know that; it would be hard to make them work, otherwise.
Those are a small number of tunnels and the pumping equipment is
(supposedly) subject to a maintenance regime.
Drivel's proposal for *every* village to be tunnelled under would
create thousands of tunnels and the guarantee is that sooner of later
one of them will flood catastrophically and lives on the train will be
lost.
He's a ****wit who doesn't think things through.

wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 05:53:26 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

There's lots of places need to be continuously pumped as well as
tunnels.
Every single tunnel under a river is pumped
http://www.severnsideforum.co.uk/severn%20tunnel.htm

I know that; it would be hard to make them work, otherwise.
Those are a small number of tunnels and the pumping equipment is
(supposedly) subject to a maintenance regime.
Drivel's proposal for *every* village to be tunnelled under would
create thousands of tunnels and the guarantee is that sooner of later
one of them will flood catastrophically and lives on the train will be
lost.
He's a ****wit who doesn't think things through.

To be fair, he never understood the meaning of "when in a hole, stop
digging". His village has lots of tunnels.

--
Adam