tony sayer wrote:
In article , John Williamson
scribeth thus
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,

The essence of the business has to be speed of handling. I remember from
my Eagle Book of Trains (circa 1952) they were talking about the hump
marshalling yards, where it took a couple of days to make up a train.

When I worked in Stoke marshalling yard, we used to make up at least
half a dozen trains a shift by sorting the wagons that came in on a
different half dozen trains. About 150 waggons in total. At the yard I
worked in which was connected to a coal mine, we sent out up to two
trains per hour from a similar number of trains of empties coming in and
being loaded. After I left, they could turn round a train in under half
an hour using the Merry Go Round system, in addition to the other
workings.

Then again, these were British trains of up to 40 waggons, whereas if
you look at the American trains, they are a lot longer, and I suspect
that these are what the Eagle Book Of trains is referring to.

What killed the railways off for waggon load traffic was the delays
while the waggon got shunted from train to train, taking days to get
from A to B. The same load on a lorry took hours, as it didn't need
shunting at many yards along the way. For the same reasons, it was
cheaper to send stuff by lorry once the road network and lorries were
good enough to cope.


John..

That was then .. these days the same idea needs modernising and some
vision to do that as NP has suggested...

TNP's idea might work, but stopping times for the train wouldn't be
reduced that much due to the way such things have to work. He's
advocating the hub and star approach currently used by all the non-bulk
goods carriers in this country, with the added restriction that he needs
many more (Expensive to build) rail stopping places than there are
currently. It can be done, but we'd need to (at a guess) at least
quadruple the track mileage that exists at present.

The other problem is that if we could double the amount of non-bulk
freight carried by rail by either building more lines or reducing the
number of passenger trains on the lines we've got, we'd still reduce
road traffic by less than 20%. There's also the problem of the "last
mile", which has to be by road. As a country, we've invested too heavily
in road transport to make it easy to go back to rail.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Since my journey by air from Cambridge to Glasgow was considerably
cheaper by plane than that by train, I deduce that fewer of society's
resources are consumed by the plane mode of transport than by train.

Most unusual for a plane journey to cost less door to door in the UK.

Umm, no. Although I note the weasel term "door to door", I've never
known a train to go "door to door", nor an aeroplane journey.

Southampton to Manchester return - £212 by train
Southampton to Manchester return - £102 with Flybe

"Door to Door" would add £41 to both fares for a hire car at the
destination. Unless of course you are assuming that all passengers want
to go to the railway station.

On Dec 23, 4:59*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
*"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
* *Tim Streater wrote:
'Pre Beeching' they suffered in the same way as many other UK
industries - lack of investment.

Presumably because investors didn't see making any money on them. Things
like that are wasting society's resources.

You mean railways? Well, every other country seems to have them -
including the US.

Barely.

Interesting turn of phrase 'wasting society's resources'. *Personally, I
think of railways *as* one of society's resources.

Society's resources are people and money. The railways, like any
enterprise, need/consume some of the resources to perform a function.
The question is how much resources in order to achieve a certain desired
result.

The desired result is to move people and goods from where they start to
various required destinations. The desired result is *not* specifically
to run a railway (any more than it is to run airlines, buses, or
anything else in particular). That is to say, no mode of transport has
an inherent right to exist, just because it has existed in the past or
is "cute". This is a point that railway anoraks and TGV willy-wavers
overlook.

Since my journey by air from Cambridge to Glasgow was considerably
cheaper by plane than that by train, I deduce that fewer of society's
resources are consumed by the plane mode of transport than by train.
Since Tesco, Sainsbury, et al, move their goods in 44-tonners, I
conclude they've made the same calculation.


Not everything is about money. When the bean counters get to be in
charge it usually ends in disaster. Take Detroit as an extreme
example.

On Dec 23, 10:13*pm, Huge wrote:
On 2012-12-23, Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
*Tim Lamb wrote:

American freight trains puzzle me as they appear to travel very slowly..

In a lot of instances, the track is in a really ****ty state.

I've travelled between New York & Philadelphia a few times by train, which
is one of Amtrak's flagship lines, and it's pretty crap ...


I've travelled on American buses (Greyhound and the like)
Ranges from crap to mediocre.
The best buses are in Brasil.
The worst are in Bolivia.

On 23/12/2012 19:06, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Since my journey by air from Cambridge to Glasgow was considerably
cheaper by plane than that by train, I deduce that fewer of society's
resources are consumed by the plane mode of transport than by train.

Most unusual for a plane journey to cost less door to door in the UK.

Leeds - Heathrow is cheaper by air than by rail.

--
F

On 24/12/2012 06:45, harry wrote:

The best buses are in Brasil.
The worst are in Bolivia.

The ones in Cuba aren't too good either. Try Havana - Trinidad in heavy
rain: you'll need an umbrella up inside the bus! On the way back to
Havana the bus got a puncture after hitting the central reservation
kerb. Took two hours to change one bald tyre for another using a very
heavy driver swinging on the end of scaffolding poles on the wheel nut
wrench!

--
F

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
The other problem is that if we could double the amount of non-bulk
freight carried by rail by either building more lines or reducing the
number of passenger trains on the lines we've got, we'd still reduce
road traffic by less than 20%. There's also the problem of the "last
mile", which has to be by road. As a country, we've invested too heavily
in road transport to make it easy to go back to rail.

Run the freight trains at night?

--
*Why is a boxing ring square?

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

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Since my journey by air from Cambridge to Glasgow was considerably
cheaper by plane than that by train, I deduce that fewer of society's
resources are consumed by the plane mode of transport than by train.

Most unusual for a plane journey to cost less door to door in the UK.

Umm, no. Although I note the weasel term "door to door", I've never
known a train to go "door to door", nor an aeroplane journey.

Weasel term? I suppose you've not noticed that airports are usually some
way from the centre of a town - railways stations usually central.

Southampton to Manchester return - £212 by train
Southampton to Manchester return - £102 with Flybe

Strange. Looking at national rail enquiries it's 97.40 to travel today now
coming back the day after boxing day also at 11.00 departure. Cheapest air
I can find is 450.00, departing 'this morning'.


"Door to Door" would add £41 to both fares for a hire car at the
destination.

Exactly the same amount from two different locations? You must have chosen
the destination *very* carefully.

Unless of course you are assuming that all passengers want
to go to the railway station.

And you're assuming they are closer to the airport in both cases.

--
*Remember, no-one is listening until you fart.*

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

In article ,
F news@nowhere wrote:
On 23/12/2012 19:06, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Since my journey by air from Cambridge to Glasgow was considerably
cheaper by plane than that by train, I deduce that fewer of society's
resources are consumed by the plane mode of transport than by train.

Most unusual for a plane journey to cost less door to door in the UK.

Leeds - Heathrow is cheaper by air than by rail.

Airport to airport is cheaper by plane? Not surprising, really.

--
*A woman drove me to drink and I didn't have the decency to thank her

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
The other problem is that if we could double the amount of non-bulk
freight carried by rail by either building more lines or reducing the
number of passenger trains on the lines we've got, we'd still reduce
road traffic by less than 20%. There's also the problem of the "last
mile", which has to be by road. As a country, we've invested too heavily
in road transport to make it easy to go back to rail.

Run the freight trains at night?

They already do. They have to compete for track space with the
maintenance guys, who also want the track at night and weekends. I've
spent many a night driving a coach pretending to be the last train while
the tracks are closed. Occasionally, they get it wrong, and I also drive
the first "train" of the day.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Umm, no. Although I note the weasel term "door to door", I've never
known a train to go "door to door", nor an aeroplane journey.

Weasel term? I suppose you've not noticed that airports are usually some
way from the centre of a town - railways stations usually central.

Yes, you're doing the railista's trick of claiming that a railway
journey ends at the station and that a journey by air must also end at a
station. Talk about "rigged".

Southampton to Manchester return - £212 by train
Southampton to Manchester return - £102 with Flybe

Strange. Looking at national rail enquiries it's 97.40 to travel today now
coming back the day after boxing day also at 11.00 departure. Cheapest air
I can find is 450.00, departing 'this morning'.

The bookings were for the 7th of January. It's possible to get a cheaper
rail fare by splitting the journeys, the price quoted is for an economy
return ticket. IMO split journeys, since the TOCs argue break the
"spirit" of the booking conditions - not that they honour the "spirit",
ever - should not count, nor should the last minute discounts.

Oh, one difference train to airline, you will get a seat on the
aeroplane. And of course booking a flight for *today* will always be
expensive.

"Door to Door" would add £41 to both fares for a hire car at the
destination.

Exactly the same amount from two different locations? You must have chosen
the destination *very* carefully.

Of course, the car hire companies charge the same daily rate for a hire
car collected from M/Cr Piccadilly or from M/Cr Airport. Did you not
realise that? Note the use of the term "hire car" in the sentence that
you quoted.

Unless of course you are assuming that all passengers want
to go to the railway station.

And you're assuming they are closer to the airport in both cases.

No, that's utter biull****. I am quoting the fares from *my* local
airport, which is also where the railway station is - they are literally
side by side. And I am quoting the fares to where I want to go in early
January, for a route I use often. You were the one that it was "Most
unusual" for a plane journey to cost less than a train journey. IME it
is rare for a train journey to be cheaper and it always takes longer.

Like most people who live in a city, you tend to assume that a "door to
door" journey is from London Euston to some other city centre. Other
people tend to want to travel from where they live to another
destination which will probably be distant from both rail and airport.

In my case the route chosen was from home to North Cheshire. The airport
is actually closer to the destination than the railway station, but in
deference to the screaming heeby-jeebys of railistas I loaded both with
the same hire car costs.

On 23/12/2012 22:23, Huge wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

well the roads ARE heavily subsidised..

Still amply justifying your killfile entry, I see.


If he's in your killfile how come (a) you see his posts and (b) you
think they are worth answering?

Andy

On 24/12/12 17:19, Andy Champ wrote:
On 23/12/2012 22:23, Huge wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

well the roads ARE heavily subsidised..

Still amply justifying your killfile entry, I see.


If he's in your killfile how come (a) you see his posts and (b) you
think they are worth answering?


well yes.

I left it for intelligent people to notice that.
Andy


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

In article , Tim
Streater scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:

In article , Huge
scribeth thus
On 2012-12-23, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
'Pre Beeching' they suffered in the same way as many other UK
industries - lack of investment.

Presumably because investors didn't see making any money on them.
Things
like that are wasting society's resources.

You mean railways? Well, every other country seems to have them -
including the US.

Barely.

Interesting turn of phrase 'wasting society's resources'. Personally, I
think of railways *as* one of society's resources.

Society's resources are people and money. The railways, like any
enterprise, need/consume some of the resources to perform a function.
The question is how much resources in order to achieve a certain desired
result.

The desired result is to move people and goods from where they start to
various required destinations. The desired result is *not* specifically
to run a railway (any more than it is to run airlines, buses, or
anything else in particular). That is to say, no mode of transport has
an inherent right to exist, just because it has existed in the past or
is "cute". This is a point that railway anoraks and TGV willy-wavers
overlook.

Since my journey by air from Cambridge to Glasgow was considerably
cheaper by plane than that by train, I deduce that fewer of society's
resources are consumed by the plane mode of transport than by train.
Since Tesco, Sainsbury, et al, move their goods in 44-tonners, I
conclude they've made the same calculation.

Although the the railway anoraks and TGV willy-wavers

Have you used a TGV or needed to travel distances in France?.

My other half is from there and for her and her family friends etc its
the de facto standard for travelling any long "ish" distance.

And it works very well indeed...

I refer you to my previous post about TGVs, France, and cheap nuclear
volts. Course, being France, I imagine it's not possible to know what
subsidy it gets, even so.


Well I do admire them sometimes for just getting on with things. Like
the mobile phone coverage there even in the remote parts its solid. Want
to put up a phone tower then just do it. Want to build a railway line
then just do it.

Nuclear power station, then do it get on with it and I see they haven't
gone a bundle on Windy Mills either....

What to go on strike;?, then just do that;!)..

Interesting bit about the French TGV 'tho;!..


The chief designer on the project and the man behind the TGV's
distinctive and renowned streamlined nose was Jack Cooper. He began
working on the design for the TGV 001 Turbotrain, inside and out, soon
after joining Alsthom in 1968. His visually impressive futuristic design
was adopted with little hesitation. The design phase for the TGV was
complete by the mid-1970s, and the first production order was placed on
4 November, 1976.
--
Tony Sayer

In article , charles
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
In article , charles
scribeth thus
In article , tony sayer
wrote:
In article , charles
scribeth thus
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

To be honest since the population is so dispersed if you can drive to
the station you can drive further.. So long as diesel is cheaper than
trains, people will drive.

especially if you want to go somewhere that the train journey is
inconvenient. eg I want to go to the theatre in Woking. I can either
drive there, and park in the adjacent car park, in 25 minutes or I can
walk to the station (10 minutes), get on a train to Guildford (20
minutes), wait for train to Woking (up to 15 minutes) and get on that
train (10 minutes) and then walk to the theatre (5 minutes).


What do you do if you need to go to London?.

use the train. (unless I'm collecting something big or heavy, in which
case, I'll take the car)


Well these days its the optimum method of travel the train and the go
anywhere in London ticket..

No bother parking, no congestion charge and for that no other bother and
now around less in price;!..

FWIW theres no other theatres around here unless you mean Bury St Eds
and or P'boro..

How about the Arts? and the ADC (of which I'm still a life member, I think).


Ah! I assumed you being a light blue man would know that...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , John Williamson
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article , John Williamson
scribeth thus
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,

The essence of the business has to be speed of handling. I remember from
my Eagle Book of Trains (circa 1952) they were talking about the hump
marshalling yards, where it took a couple of days to make up a train.

When I worked in Stoke marshalling yard, we used to make up at least
half a dozen trains a shift by sorting the wagons that came in on a
different half dozen trains. About 150 waggons in total. At the yard I
worked in which was connected to a coal mine, we sent out up to two
trains per hour from a similar number of trains of empties coming in and
being loaded. After I left, they could turn round a train in under half
an hour using the Merry Go Round system, in addition to the other
workings.

Then again, these were British trains of up to 40 waggons, whereas if
you look at the American trains, they are a lot longer, and I suspect
that these are what the Eagle Book Of trains is referring to.

What killed the railways off for waggon load traffic was the delays
while the waggon got shunted from train to train, taking days to get
from A to B. The same load on a lorry took hours, as it didn't need
shunting at many yards along the way. For the same reasons, it was
cheaper to send stuff by lorry once the road network and lorries were
good enough to cope.


John..

That was then .. these days the same idea needs modernising and some
vision to do that as NP has suggested...

TNP's idea might work, but stopping times for the train wouldn't be
reduced that much due to the way such things have to work. He's
advocating the hub and star approach currently used by all the non-bulk
goods carriers in this country, with the added restriction that he needs
many more (Expensive to build) rail stopping places than there are
currently. It can be done, but we'd need to (at a guess) at least
quadruple the track mileage that exists at present.

The other problem is that if we could double the amount of non-bulk
freight carried by rail by either building more lines or reducing the
number of passenger trains on the lines we've got, we'd still reduce
road traffic by less than 20%. There's also the problem of the "last
mile", which has to be by road. As a country, we've invested too heavily
in road transport to make it easy to go back to rail.


I think it may well come about due to the means of traction changing.
Its very simple to run railways on Leccy and despite the advances in
electric vehicles it does seem a long way off the leccy driven 44
tonner.

The whole system needs a co-ordinated rethink . It will come..

Also anyone heard of the battery driven 737;?...

--
Tony Sayer

On Dec 24, 9:20*am, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,









*harry wrote:
On Dec 23, 4:59*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
*"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
* *Tim Streater wrote:
'Pre Beeching' they suffered in the same way as many other UK
industries - lack of investment.

Presumably because investors didn't see making any money on them. Things
like that are wasting society's resources.

You mean railways? Well, every other country seems to have them -
including the US.

Barely.

Interesting turn of phrase 'wasting society's resources'. *Personally, I
think of railways *as* one of society's resources.

Society's resources are people and money. The railways, like any
enterprise, need/consume some of the resources to perform a function.
The question is how much resources in order to achieve a certain desired
result.

The desired result is to move people and goods from where they start to
various required destinations. The desired result is *not* specifically
to run a railway (any more than it is to run airlines, buses, or
anything else in particular). That is to say, no mode of transport has
an inherent right to exist, just because it has existed in the past or
is "cute". This is a point that railway anoraks and TGV willy-wavers
overlook.

Since my journey by air from Cambridge to Glasgow was considerably
cheaper by plane than that by train, I deduce that fewer of society's
resources are consumed by the plane mode of transport than by train.
Since Tesco, Sainsbury, et al, move their goods in 44-tonners, I
conclude they've made the same calculation.
Not everything is about money. *When the bean counters get to be in
charge it usually ends in disaster. Take Detroit as an extreme
example.

I would have thought that for something as mundane as that, that's
exactly what it's about. And what about Detroit?

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" *-- *Bill of Rights 1689

The place is laid waste due to untrammelled capitalism

On Dec 24, 10:13*am, F news@nowhere wrote:
On 24/12/2012 06:45, harry wrote:

The best buses are in Brasil.
The worst are in Bolivia.

The ones in Cuba aren't too good either. Try Havana - Trinidad in heavy
rain: you'll need an umbrella up inside the bus! On the way back to
Havana the bus got a puncture after hitting the central reservation
kerb. Took two hours to change one bald tyre for another using a very
heavy driver swinging on the end of scaffolding poles on the wheel nut
wrench!

--
F

Some in Bolivia don't even have a roof.

On 24/12/2012 18:59, tony sayer wrote:
Also anyone heard of the battery driven 737;?...

Madly enough they are working on battery driven planes.

http://news.discovery.com/space/ultra-efficient-aircraft-nasa-mars-111020.html

200 miles in 2 hours while using the equivalent of about 2 gallons of
fuel for 4 passengers.

(actually passenger equivalents. 2 of them were replaced by 200lbs of
ballast each. _US_ passenger equivalents... )

Andy

In article
s.com, harry scribeth thus
On Dec 24, 10:13*am, F news@nowhere wrote:
On 24/12/2012 06:45, harry wrote:

The best buses are in Brasil.
The worst are in Bolivia.

The ones in Cuba aren't too good either. Try Havana - Trinidad in heavy
rain: you'll need an umbrella up inside the bus! On the way back to
Havana the bus got a puncture after hitting the central reservation
kerb. Took two hours to change one bald tyre for another using a very
heavy driver swinging on the end of scaffolding poles on the wheel nut
wrench!

--
F

Some in Bolivia don't even have a roof.

So I'm told by my eldest who went there last year. She did keep away
from the road of death cut into the mountains side!...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26lvJwv2Dso

Among others like it perhaps a parachute might be more use then a
roof;!...
--
Tony Sayer

On Dec 26, 2:41*pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article
s.com, harry scribeth thus









On Dec 24, 10:13*am, F news@nowhere wrote:
On 24/12/2012 06:45, harry wrote:

The best buses are in Brasil.
The worst are in Bolivia.

The ones in Cuba aren't too good either. Try Havana - Trinidad in heavy
rain: you'll need an umbrella up inside the bus! On the way back to
Havana the bus got a puncture after hitting the central reservation
kerb. Took two hours to change one bald tyre for another using a very
heavy driver swinging on the end of scaffolding poles on the wheel nut
wrench!

--
F

Some in Bolivia don't even have a roof.

So I'm told by my eldest who went there last year. She did keep away
from the road of death cut into the mountains side!...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26lvJwv2Dso

Among others like it perhaps a parachute might be more use then a
roof;!...
--
Tony Sayer

We have travelled quite extensively in Bolivia and elsewhere in S
America. Great place.

In message
,
harry writes
On Dec 26, 2:41*pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article
s.com, harry scribeth thus









On Dec 24, 10:13*am, F news@nowhere wrote:
On 24/12/2012 06:45, harry wrote:

The best buses are in Brasil.
The worst are in Bolivia.

The ones in Cuba aren't too good either. Try Havana - Trinidad in heavy
rain: you'll need an umbrella up inside the bus! On the way back to
Havana the bus got a puncture after hitting the central reservation
kerb. Took two hours to change one bald tyre for another using a very
heavy driver swinging on the end of scaffolding poles on the wheel nut
wrench!

--
F

Some in Bolivia don't even have a roof.

So I'm told by my eldest who went there last year. She did keep away
from the road of death cut into the mountains side!...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26lvJwv2Dso

Among others like it perhaps a parachute might be more use then a
roof;!...
--
Tony Sayer

We have travelled quite extensively in Bolivia and elsewhere in S
America. Great place.

Was it you who stole the rooves off the busses then?

--
geoff

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:03:53 -0500, S Viemeister wrote:
You mean railways? Well, every other country seems to have them -
including the US.

Barely.

The Boston-Chicago-Washington DC triangle is fairly well served. But
there are vast areas with little or no service.

My local town has a freight service a couple of times a week. I think my
nearest passenger service is well over 100 miles away... :-)

cheers

Jules

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:14:57 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:

American freight trains puzzle me as they appear to travel very slowly.

In a lot of instances, the track is in a really ****ty state.
Derailments are frequent. Also when the train is a mile or more long,
with a couple of engines at each end, possibly a couple in the middle
(not sure about that), you need to take it carefully.

Around here they're typically two or three engines at the front, although
I have seen two at the front and one at the back a couple of times. They
are indeed often a mile or more long, and typically shipping containers
are stacked two-high as there aren't bridges and the like to get in the
way.

They seem to manage around 50mph on the good track, but you're right in
saying that there's a lot of crappy stuff out there.

One method of moving goods often seen here is to put loaded lorry
trailers onto the train flatbeds - that way it only needs something to
pull them at the remote end and they can be quckly taken out onto the
roads for 'local' distribution of the contents.

cheers

Jules

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:

American freight trains puzzle me as they appear to travel very slowly.

In a lot of instances, the track is in a really ****ty state. Derailments
are frequent.

Also when the train is a mile or more long, with a couple of engines at
each end, possibly a couple in the middle (not sure about that), you need
to take it carefully.

The longest and heaviest freight trains in the entire world,
the Pilbara iron ore trains, dont travel very slowly, so that
can't be the reason.

On Dec 26, 7:18*pm, geoff wrote:
In message
,
harry writes









On Dec 26, 2:41*pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article
s.com, harry scribeth thus

On Dec 24, 10:13*am, F news@nowhere wrote:
On 24/12/2012 06:45, harry wrote:

The best buses are in Brasil.
The worst are in Bolivia.

The ones in Cuba aren't too good either. Try Havana - Trinidad in heavy
rain: you'll need an umbrella up inside the bus! On the way back to
Havana the bus got a puncture after hitting the central reservation
kerb. Took two hours to change one bald tyre for another using a very
heavy driver swinging on the end of scaffolding poles on the wheel nut
wrench!

--
F

Some in Bolivia don't even have a roof.

So I'm told by my eldest who went there last year. She did keep away
from the road of death cut into the mountains side!...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26lvJwv2Dso

Among others like it perhaps a parachute might be more use then a
roof;!...
--
Tony Sayer

We have travelled quite extensively in Bolivia and elsewhere in S
America. Great place.

Was it you who stole the rooves off the busses then?

--
geoff

Heh Heh.
You can get an indication of how interesting a buses destination in
South America is by the bus.

Normal buses...somewhat interesting.

Bus with truck chassis...interesting.

Bus with no roof (converted truck, plank seats)....extremely
interesting.
If it rains, there is a tarpaulin everybody gets underneath.

You really need a trans Andes trip in the latter for a good holiday.

On Dec 26, 9:34*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message

...

In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:

American freight trains puzzle me as they appear to travel very slowly..

In a lot of instances, the track is in a really ****ty state. Derailments
are frequent.
Also when the train is a mile or more long, with a couple of engines at
each end, possibly a couple in the middle (not sure about that), you need
to take it carefully.

The longest and heaviest freight trains in the entire world,
the Pilbara iron ore trains, don’t travel very slowly, so that
can't be the reason.

Depends on how well maintained the track is.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Dec 26, 9:34 pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message

...

In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:

American freight trains puzzle me as they appear to travel very
slowly.

In a lot of instances, the track is in a really ****ty state.
Derailments
are frequent.
Also when the train is a mile or more long, with a couple of engines at
each end, possibly a couple in the middle (not sure about that), you
need
to take it carefully.

The longest and heaviest freight trains in the entire world,
the Pilbara iron ore trains, don’t travel very slowly, so that
can't be the reason.

Depends on how well maintained the track is.

What I said in different words.

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message
, harry
writes
On Dec 26, 2:41 pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article
s.com, harry scribeth thus









On Dec 24, 10:13 am, F news@nowhere wrote:
On 24/12/2012 06:45, harry wrote:

The best buses are in Brasil.
The worst are in Bolivia.

The ones in Cuba aren't too good either. Try Havana - Trinidad in
heavy
rain: you'll need an umbrella up inside the bus! On the way back to
Havana the bus got a puncture after hitting the central reservation
kerb. Took two hours to change one bald tyre for another using a very
heavy driver swinging on the end of scaffolding poles on the wheel
nut
wrench!

--
F

Some in Bolivia don't even have a roof.

So I'm told by my eldest who went there last year. She did keep away
from the road of death cut into the mountains side!...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26lvJwv2Dso

Among others like it perhaps a parachute might be more use then a
roof;!...
--
Tony Sayer

We have travelled quite extensively in Bolivia and elsewhere in S
America. Great place.

Was it you who stole the rooves off the busses then?

--
geoff


He was gonna replace them with solar panels, but got caught ... :-)

Arfa

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 09/12/12 18:09, Mr Pounder wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20657939

One of my childhood heros.


His last program is going out at midnight in an hour and a half


--
geoff