S
server
Guest
message unavailable
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
P
Peeler
Guest
On 21 Mar 2023 19:55:43 GMT, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:
WTF has your latest shit got to do with \"circuit breakers\", you useless,
endlessly driveling senile cretin?
--
Another one of the resident senile bigmouth\'s idiotic \"cool\" lines:
\"If you\'re an ax murderer don\'t leave souvenir photos on your phone.\"
\"MID: <k7ssc7F8mt9U3@mid.individual.net>\"
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:
The US uses intermodal transportation. A truck loads freight and takes the
loaded trailer to a rail depot or port and the entire trailer is
transferred. It may either be a container that is placed on a chassis for
truck transport or sometimes the complete road trailer.
WTF has your latest shit got to do with \"circuit breakers\", you useless,
endlessly driveling senile cretin?
--
Another one of the resident senile bigmouth\'s idiotic \"cool\" lines:
\"If you\'re an ax murderer don\'t leave souvenir photos on your phone.\"
\"MID: <k7ssc7F8mt9U3@mid.individual.net>\"
S
SteveW
Guest
On 21/03/2023 19:55, rbowman wrote:
Containers go on trains here, but not usually entire trailers. Due to
being the first to develop railways, they were mainly built with bridges
and tunnels too small to allow that.
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 19:01:13 -0000, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Depends which statistic you believe. And trains can only go where there
are tracks, so much loading and unloading and messing about at both
ends.
The US uses intermodal transportation. A truck loads freight and takes the
loaded trailer to a rail depot or port and the entire trailer is
transferred. It may either be a container that is placed on a chassis for
truck transport or sometimes the complete road trailer.
Containers go on trains here, but not usually entire trailers. Due to
being the first to develop railways, they were mainly built with bridges
and tunnels too small to allow that.
B
Bob F
Guest
On 3/21/2023 4:24 PM, SteveW wrote:
They double stack containers here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-stack_rail_transport
On 21/03/2023 19:55, rbowman wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 19:01:13 -0000, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Depends which statistic you believe. And trains can only go where there
are tracks, so much loading and unloading and messing about at both
ends.
The US uses intermodal transportation. A truck loads freight and takes
the
loaded trailer to a rail depot or port and the entire trailer is
transferred. It may either be a container that is placed on a chassis for
truck transport or sometimes the complete road trailer.
Containers go on trains here, but not usually entire trailers. Due to
being the first to develop railways, they were mainly built with bridges
and tunnels too small to allow that.
They double stack containers here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-stack_rail_transport
R
rbowman
Guest
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 23:24:21 +0000, SteveW wrote:
Lack of foresight... There may be routes in the US that are restricted.
There are trucker atlases showing truck routes where there are no
underpasses with less than 13\' 6\" clearance. There may be something
similar for trains.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailer-on-flatcar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-stack_rail_transport
\" Nonetheless, North American railroads have invested large sums to raise
bridges and tunnel clearances along their routes and remove other
obstacles to allow greater use of double stack trains and to give them
more direct routes.\"
Related factoid: the Tiger tanks were a little too wide for the regulation
tunnel widths so when they were shipped by rail the outer road wheels were
removed and a narrow track installed.
Containers go on trains here, but not usually entire trailers. Due to
being the first to develop railways, they were mainly built with bridges
and tunnels too small to allow that.
Lack of foresight... There may be routes in the US that are restricted.
There are trucker atlases showing truck routes where there are no
underpasses with less than 13\' 6\" clearance. There may be something
similar for trains.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailer-on-flatcar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-stack_rail_transport
\" Nonetheless, North American railroads have invested large sums to raise
bridges and tunnel clearances along their routes and remove other
obstacles to allow greater use of double stack trains and to give them
more direct routes.\"
Related factoid: the Tiger tanks were a little too wide for the regulation
tunnel widths so when they were shipped by rail the outer road wheels were
removed and a narrow track installed.
P
Peeler
Guest
On 22 Mar 2023 02:13:20 GMT, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:
> Lack of foresight...
No lack of your endless senile blather, though!
<FLUSH the abnormal bigmouth\'s usual verbose crap unread>
--
Another one of the resident senile bigmouth\'s idiotic \"cool\" lines:
\"If you\'re an ax murderer don\'t leave souvenir photos on your phone.\"
\"MID: <k7ssc7F8mt9U3@mid.individual.net>\"
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:
> Lack of foresight...
No lack of your endless senile blather, though!
<FLUSH the abnormal bigmouth\'s usual verbose crap unread>
--
Another one of the resident senile bigmouth\'s idiotic \"cool\" lines:
\"If you\'re an ax murderer don\'t leave souvenir photos on your phone.\"
\"MID: <k7ssc7F8mt9U3@mid.individual.net>\"
S
SteveW
Guest
On 22/03/2023 00:23, Bob F wrote:
Yes, I\'ve seen them before.
As you can see here: http://igg.org.uk/gansg/2-track/ukavgauge.jpg the
AVERAGE loading gauge in England is far smaller. Some lines are smaller
still and require locos and rolling stock with reduced height and/or width.
On 3/21/2023 4:24 PM, SteveW wrote:
On 21/03/2023 19:55, rbowman wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 19:01:13 -0000, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Depends which statistic you believe. And trains can only go where
there
are tracks, so much loading and unloading and messing about at both
ends.
The US uses intermodal transportation. A truck loads freight and
takes the
loaded trailer to a rail depot or port and the entire trailer is
transferred. It may either be a container that is placed on a chassis
for
truck transport or sometimes the complete road trailer.
Containers go on trains here, but not usually entire trailers. Due to
being the first to develop railways, they were mainly built with
bridges and tunnels too small to allow that.
They double stack containers here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-stack_rail_transport
Yes, I\'ve seen them before.
As you can see here: http://igg.org.uk/gansg/2-track/ukavgauge.jpg the
AVERAGE loading gauge in England is far smaller. Some lines are smaller
still and require locos and rolling stock with reduced height and/or width.
S
SteveW
Guest
On 22/03/2023 02:13, rbowman wrote:
Not really. Much of the network was built well over 100 years ago. Due
to the crowded nature of the UK, it would be incredibly disruptive to
update the huge number of bridges and tunnels here - there are six
bridges within a mile of me now, all on the same line, to connect two
sides of the town. To raise some of them would require very steep
approaches or demolishing a lot of buildings to allow a more gradual
approach.
Unlike the US, we have mainly used bridges over the track (some under)
rather than level crossings and trains run fenced off from the public,
requiring more bridges, as the public cannot cross elsewhere. Which is
why we have far fewer road/rail collisions than the US.
We simply have systems that have developed in different ways and ours is
harder to update for bigger trains.
There is. You can find videos of trains that have been sent along the
wrong route, such as this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcqfa_uj2hA
It is less worth it here, as the journeys are shorter and it is usually
quicker to just use the roads, rather than have to tie in with a railway
schedule and travel to and from a depot at each end.
I have a vague memory of hearing that.
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 23:24:21 +0000, SteveW wrote:
Containers go on trains here, but not usually entire trailers. Due to
being the first to develop railways, they were mainly built with bridges
and tunnels too small to allow that.
Lack of foresight...
Not really. Much of the network was built well over 100 years ago. Due
to the crowded nature of the UK, it would be incredibly disruptive to
update the huge number of bridges and tunnels here - there are six
bridges within a mile of me now, all on the same line, to connect two
sides of the town. To raise some of them would require very steep
approaches or demolishing a lot of buildings to allow a more gradual
approach.
Unlike the US, we have mainly used bridges over the track (some under)
rather than level crossings and trains run fenced off from the public,
requiring more bridges, as the public cannot cross elsewhere. Which is
why we have far fewer road/rail collisions than the US.
We simply have systems that have developed in different ways and ours is
harder to update for bigger trains.
There may be routes in the US that are restricted.
There are trucker atlases showing truck routes where there are no
underpasses with less than 13\' 6\" clearance. There may be something
similar for trains.
There is. You can find videos of trains that have been sent along the
wrong route, such as this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcqfa_uj2hA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailer-on-flatcar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-stack_rail_transport
\" Nonetheless, North American railroads have invested large sums to raise
bridges and tunnel clearances along their routes and remove other
obstacles to allow greater use of double stack trains and to give them
more direct routes.\"
It is less worth it here, as the journeys are shorter and it is usually
quicker to just use the roads, rather than have to tie in with a railway
schedule and travel to and from a depot at each end.
Related factoid: the Tiger tanks were a little too wide for the regulation
tunnel widths so when they were shipped by rail the outer road wheels were
removed and a narrow track installed.
I have a vague memory of hearing that.
M
Max Demian
Guest
On 22/03/2023 09:00, SteveW wrote:
This is why we can\'t have proper double decker passenger trains in the
UK. There were these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_4DD but they
were only one-an-a-half deckers. I used to travel on them sometimes; I
didn\'t realise they only made two trains like that.
--
Max Demian
On 22/03/2023 00:23, Bob F wrote:
On 3/21/2023 4:24 PM, SteveW wrote:
Containers go on trains here, but not usually entire trailers. Due to
being the first to develop railways, they were mainly built with
bridges and tunnels too small to allow that.
They double stack containers here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-stack_rail_transport
Yes, I\'ve seen them before.
As you can see here: http://igg.org.uk/gansg/2-track/ukavgauge.jpg the
AVERAGE loading gauge in England is far smaller. Some lines are smaller
still and require locos and rolling stock with reduced height and/or width.
This is why we can\'t have proper double decker passenger trains in the
UK. There were these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_4DD but they
were only one-an-a-half deckers. I used to travel on them sometimes; I
didn\'t realise they only made two trains like that.
--
Max Demian
M
Max Demian
Guest
On 22/03/2023 02:13, rbowman wrote:
Like building Windsor Castle under the Heathrow flight path.
--
Max Demian
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 23:24:21 +0000, SteveW wrote:
Containers go on trains here, but not usually entire trailers. Due to
being the first to develop railways, they were mainly built with bridges
and tunnels too small to allow that.
Lack of foresight...
Like building Windsor Castle under the Heathrow flight path.
--
Max Demian
M
Max Demian
Guest
On 22/03/2023 09:14, SteveW wrote:
Some electrified lines were 6.25kV AC instead of 25kV (due to bridge
clearance issues) and the trains had to switch voltage very quickly when
they transitioned. I think they are all 25kV (for overhead lines) now,
so they must have changed something: perhaps they lowered the tracks.
--
Max Demian
On 22/03/2023 02:13, rbowman wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 23:24:21 +0000, SteveW wrote:
Containers go on trains here, but not usually entire trailers. Due to
being the first to develop railways, they were mainly built with bridges
and tunnels too small to allow that.
Lack of foresight...
Not really. Much of the network was built well over 100 years ago. Due
to the crowded nature of the UK, it would be incredibly disruptive to
update the huge number of bridges and tunnels here - there are six
bridges within a mile of me now, all on the same line, to connect two
sides of the town. To raise some of them would require very steep
approaches or demolishing a lot of buildings to allow a more gradual
approach.
Some electrified lines were 6.25kV AC instead of 25kV (due to bridge
clearance issues) and the trains had to switch voltage very quickly when
they transitioned. I think they are all 25kV (for overhead lines) now,
so they must have changed something: perhaps they lowered the tracks.
--
Max Demian
C
Colin Bignell
Guest
On 22/03/2023 02:13, rbowman wrote:
Partly a result of having to dig tunnels through rock by hand, with only
gunpowder available for blasting.
--
Colin Bignell
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 23:24:21 +0000, SteveW wrote:
Containers go on trains here, but not usually entire trailers. Due to
being the first to develop railways, they were mainly built with bridges
and tunnels too small to allow that.
Lack of foresight...
Partly a result of having to dig tunnels through rock by hand, with only
gunpowder available for blasting.
--
Colin Bignell
R
rbowman
Guest
On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 09:14:25 +0000, SteveW wrote:
Now that\'s impressive. When a tractor trailer drives under a low overpass
it doesn\'t have the horsepower or momentum to peel back more than half of
the trailer.
There is. You can find videos of trains that have been sent along the
wrong route, such as this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcqfa_uj2hA
Now that\'s impressive. When a tractor trailer drives under a low overpass
it doesn\'t have the horsepower or momentum to peel back more than half of
the trailer.
R
rbowman
Guest
On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 18:05:34 +0000, Colin Bignell wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Paul_Pass_Tunnel
The right of way is now a bike trail. I rode up from the Avery side.
Headlights were required and I\'d bought the cheapest I could find. At the
fist tunnel I realized I couldn\'t see a damn thing and walked the bike.
The next 8 were more of the same. When I got to the mouth of the 1.6 mile
tunnel I\'d had enough of tunnels for the day and turned around to ride
downhill.
It\'s a beautiful ride, but don\'t scrimp on the light.
On 22/03/2023 02:13, rbowman wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 23:24:21 +0000, SteveW wrote:
Containers go on trains here, but not usually entire trailers. Due to
being the first to develop railways, they were mainly built with
bridges and tunnels too small to allow that.
Lack of foresight...
Partly a result of having to dig tunnels through rock by hand, with only
gunpowder available for blasting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Paul_Pass_Tunnel
The right of way is now a bike trail. I rode up from the Avery side.
Headlights were required and I\'d bought the cheapest I could find. At the
fist tunnel I realized I couldn\'t see a damn thing and walked the bike.
The next 8 were more of the same. When I got to the mouth of the 1.6 mile
tunnel I\'d had enough of tunnels for the day and turned around to ride
downhill.
It\'s a beautiful ride, but don\'t scrimp on the light.
P
Peeler
Guest
On 23 Mar 2023 04:57:55 GMT, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:
> Now that\'s impressive.
NOTHING in these groups is as impressive as your big big mouth, you
endlessly gossiping washerwoman!
--
Yet more of the so very interesting senile blather by lowbrowwoman:
\"My family loaded me into a \'51 Chevy and drove from NY to Seattle and
back in \'52. I\'m alive. The Chevy had a painted steel dashboard with two
little hand prints worn down to the primer because I liked to stand up
and lean on it to see where we were going.\"
MID: <j2kuc1F3ejsU1@mid.individual.net>
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:
> Now that\'s impressive.
NOTHING in these groups is as impressive as your big big mouth, you
endlessly gossiping washerwoman!
--
Yet more of the so very interesting senile blather by lowbrowwoman:
\"My family loaded me into a \'51 Chevy and drove from NY to Seattle and
back in \'52. I\'m alive. The Chevy had a painted steel dashboard with two
little hand prints worn down to the primer because I liked to stand up
and lean on it to see where we were going.\"
MID: <j2kuc1F3ejsU1@mid.individual.net>
P
Peeler
Guest
On 23 Mar 2023 05:08:07 GMT, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:
Have you ever wondered why nobody in RL wants to listen to you and you have
to resort to Usenet where you can keep talking endlessly about your grand
personality, you idiotic, self-admiring, self-important bigmouth? ;-)
--
More typical idiotic senile gossip by lowbrowwoman:
\"It\'s been years since I\'ve been in a fast food burger joint but I used
to like Wendy\'s because they had a salad bar and baked potatoes.\"
MID: <ivdi4gF8btlU1@mid.individual.net>
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:
The right of way is now a bike trail. I rode up from the Avery side.
Headlights were required and I\'d bought the cheapest I could find.
Have you ever wondered why nobody in RL wants to listen to you and you have
to resort to Usenet where you can keep talking endlessly about your grand
personality, you idiotic, self-admiring, self-important bigmouth? ;-)
--
More typical idiotic senile gossip by lowbrowwoman:
\"It\'s been years since I\'ve been in a fast food burger joint but I used
to like Wendy\'s because they had a salad bar and baked potatoes.\"
MID: <ivdi4gF8btlU1@mid.individual.net>
M
Max Demian
Guest
On 02/04/2023 23:50, Commander Kinsey wrote:
No, they just kind of sat on the lower deck people\'s heads. I can\'t find
a diagram.
--
Max Demian
On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 16:58:53 -0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com
wrote:
On 22/03/2023 09:00, SteveW wrote:
On 22/03/2023 00:23, Bob F wrote:
On 3/21/2023 4:24 PM, SteveW wrote:
Containers go on trains here, but not usually entire trailers. Due to
being the first to develop railways, they were mainly built with
bridges and tunnels too small to allow that.
They double stack containers here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-stack_rail_transport
Yes, I\'ve seen them before.
As you can see here: http://igg.org.uk/gansg/2-track/ukavgauge.jpg the
AVERAGE loading gauge in England is far smaller. Some lines are smaller
still and require locos and rolling stock with reduced height and/or
width.
This is why we can\'t have proper double decker passenger trains in the
UK. There were these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_4DD but they
were only one-an-a-half deckers. I used to travel on them sometimes; I
didn\'t realise they only made two trains like that.
How the hell did that work? Did they put short people on the top deck?
No, they just kind of sat on the lower deck people\'s heads. I can\'t find
a diagram.
--
Max Demian
M
Max Demian
Guest
On 03/04/2023 18:17, Max Demian wrote:
I found something for you after all:
https://www.bloodandcustard.com/BR-4DD_files/image003.jpg
There were steps leading to the upper deck between the lower seats. The
upper deck had a high level window which couldn\'t be opened, which meant
ventilation was poor.
--
Max Demian
On 02/04/2023 23:50, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 16:58:53 -0000, Max Demian
max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 22/03/2023 09:00, SteveW wrote:
On 22/03/2023 00:23, Bob F wrote:
On 3/21/2023 4:24 PM, SteveW wrote:
Containers go on trains here, but not usually entire trailers. Due to
being the first to develop railways, they were mainly built with
bridges and tunnels too small to allow that.
They double stack containers here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-stack_rail_transport
Yes, I\'ve seen them before.
As you can see here: http://igg.org.uk/gansg/2-track/ukavgauge.jpg the
AVERAGE loading gauge in England is far smaller. Some lines are smaller
still and require locos and rolling stock with reduced height and/or
width.
This is why we can\'t have proper double decker passenger trains in the
UK. There were these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_4DD but they
were only one-an-a-half deckers. I used to travel on them sometimes; I
didn\'t realise they only made two trains like that.
How the hell did that work? Did they put short people on the top deck?
No, they just kind of sat on the lower deck people\'s heads. I can\'t find
a diagram.
I found something for you after all:
https://www.bloodandcustard.com/BR-4DD_files/image003.jpg
There were steps leading to the upper deck between the lower seats. The
upper deck had a high level window which couldn\'t be opened, which meant
ventilation was poor.
--
Max Demian
M
Max Demian
Guest
On 02/04/2023 23:54, Commander Kinsey wrote:
They switched voltage automatically.
--
Max Demian
On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 17:08:08 -0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com
wrote:
Some electrified lines were 6.25kV AC instead of 25kV (due to bridge
clearance issues) and the trains had to switch voltage very quickly when
they transitioned. I think they are all 25kV (for overhead lines) now,
so they must have changed something: perhaps they lowered the tracks.
Putting 25kV into something expecting 6.25kV could cause a the smoke to
come out.
They switched voltage automatically.
--
Max Demian
C
charles
Guest
In article <u0f29s$31sv1$2@dont-email.me>,
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
That was the plan. A lot of Glasgow\'s Blue Trains went \'bang\'.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
\"I\'d rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom\" Thomas Carlyle
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 02/04/2023 23:54, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 17:08:08 -0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com
wrote:
Some electrified lines were 6.25kV AC instead of 25kV (due to bridge
clearance issues) and the trains had to switch voltage very quickly when
they transitioned. I think they are all 25kV (for overhead lines) now,
so they must have changed something: perhaps they lowered the tracks.
Putting 25kV into something expecting 6.25kV could cause a the smoke to
come out.
They switched voltage automatically.
That was the plan. A lot of Glasgow\'s Blue Trains went \'bang\'.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
\"I\'d rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom\" Thomas Carlyle