In message <ulfqp9$1hpek$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:06:49 on Thu, 14 Dec
2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <14nlnith0jvoj0hvnk74v56gt0bjjquutu@4ax.com>, at 10:44:39 on
>> Thu, 14 Dec 2023, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>>>>> Gareth Dennis has discussed 'what's a metro' frequently.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>https://medium.com/swlh/is-cambridgeshires-new-metro-all-it-s-cracke
>>>>>d-up-to-be-cfbc6d9d0a22
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Including a very convenient flowchart:
>>>>
>>>> <https://x.com/railnatter/status/1647864495354662912>
>>>>
>>>> Key definitions include whether the line carries below 10,000 people per
>>>> hour per direction, between 10k and 20k pphpd or over 20k; steel or rubber
>>>> tyres; dedicated tracks or not, street running or not.
>>>>
>>>> The available outputs from the flowchart are car, bus, dangleway,
>>>> gadgetbahn, tram, heavy tram, light metro, metro, light suburban rail,
>>>> suburban rail, heavy suburban rail.
>>>>
>>> This is, I hope, the canonical list.
>>
>> Who is the authority that has drawn up the list?
>>
>> And what answer does the algorithm give for:
>>
>> <https://www.travelsouthyorkshire.com/en-GB/LandingPage/tram-train>
>
>Why don’t you try the flowchart on it and see what it says?

I tried, but didn't have enough data to input.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 08:47:30 +0100
Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>On 14.12.2023 17:23, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 15:50:25 -0000 (UTC)
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 18:41:06 +0000
>>>> Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/12/2023 09:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 18:15:17 +0100
>>>>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11.12.2023 12:53, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>>>>>>> My understanding was that the min distinction between 'Underground' and
>
>>>>>>>> 'Metro' is that 'Metro' is heavy Rail while 'Underground' is light
>rail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem is there isn't a consistent distinction between heavy and
>>>>>>> light rail. The term has been used for a variety of purposes over the
>>>>>>> years, often inconsistently, for an inconsistent collection of railway
>>>>>>> schemes, both proposed and realised. In the London context, the DLR was
>>>>>>> proposed as "light rail" specifically in contrast with the earlier Fleet
>
>>>>>>> line proposal to extend what became the Jubilee line east to serve the
>>>>>>> Docklands area, with the implication that the Tube is not "light rail".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My interpretation of light rail is somewhat flimsily built vehicles with
>a
>>>>>> shorter lifespan than normal trains that can negotiate tight curves and
>>>>>> carry more passengers than a bus but less than a heavy rail train.
>>>>>
>>>>> The vehicles on the Glasgow Subway and the Tyne and Wear Metro are both
>>>>> about 43 years old and commonly described as "light rail". Is that a
>shorter
>>>
>>>>> lifespan?
>>>>
>>>> Its a set of things, they don't all need to be true. As for the glasgow
>>>> subway/underground/whatever its called this week, the train cars are about
>>>> the size of a transit van so its more like a fairground ride than light
>rail.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Do you have stretch Transit vans round your way? Glasgow subway cars are
>>> 12.6 metres long, compared to approx 17.7m for tube stock (give or take
>>> depending on variant). Subway tunnel 11ft diameter compared to 11ft 8
>>> inches for London *tubes*.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole
>
>A US-only sporting competition that's even bigger than the Superbowl.

Popular during presidental nomination hustings it seems.

Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
> On 14.12.2023 17:05, Recliner wrote:
> >
> > Yes, that was the old Victorian legislation, much used by Col Stephens, and still used by the heritage railways (which
> > actually were mainly built to heavy rail standards, and run heavy rail trains). But none of the modern UK light railways
> > follow that rule. Typically, the maximum speed is 40-50 mph.
>
> I believe the process introduced for getting railways permitted using
> the Transport and Works Act is somewhat more straightforward, and since
> its adoption, the process allowed for by the Light Railways Act has
> largely stopped being used.

The T&W Act 1992 repealed the whole of the Light Railway Acts 1896 and 1912,
apart from in Scotland. So the latter process doesn't exist any more in
England and Wales.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/42/schedule/4/enacted

Presumably any heritage railway with a Light Railway Order still in force
can continue to use it, but extensions are under the T&WA.

Theo

In message <g2qmnidficvqv2kcq52707tn35iku89oj1@4ax.com>, at 20:41:15 on
Thu, 14 Dec 2023, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 16:14:05 +0000, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On 13/12/2023 15:44, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <kttfahFj6esU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:28:32 on Wed, 13
>>> Dec 2023, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ken remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://medium.com/swlh/is-cambridgeshires-new-metro-all-it-s-cracked-" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://medium.com/swlh/is-cambridgeshires-new-metro-all-it-s-cracked-
>>>>>> up  -to-be-cfbc6d9d0a22
>>>
>>>>>  "The webpage at  https://medium.com/swlh/is-cambridgeshires-new-
>>> >>metro-all-it-s-cracked-up-to-be-cfbc6d9d0a22 might be temporarily
>>>>> down or it may have moved  permanently to a new web address."
>>>>
>>>> Works for me, maybe you copied some stray characters at the point
>>>> where it wrapped?
>>>
>>> No, I just clicked the link
>>>
>>>> Anyway, it can be shortened without needing a 3rd party redirector ...
>>>>
>>>> <https://medium.com/swlh/cam-metro-cfbc6d9d0a22>
>>>
>>> That gives the same error message.
>>
>>Works here.
>
>AOL.

None of which helps diagnose why this is a one-in-twenty-year thing that
doesn't work here.

Anyway I've ported the link to a separate set of IT infrastructure,
which reveals the article is three years one month old in three days
time. And exposes what an incredibly stupid idea it was (irrespective of
what persons "on the spectrum" want to categorise it as).
--
Roland Perry

In message <35qmnit4lc8cgffj0bpm24najvvi8mm3h9@4ax.com>, at 20:42:56 on
Thu, 14 Dec 2023, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 18:27:13 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <ulcno0$u5nd$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:56:32 on Wed, 13 Dec
>>2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <kttfahFj6esU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:28:32 on Wed, 13
>>>> Dec 2023, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> remarked:
>
>>>>> <https://medium.com/swlh/cam-metro-cfbc6d9d0a22>
>>>>
>>>> That gives the same error message.
>>>
>>>The first one worked fine for me until it started getting wrapping and
>>>extra spaces included in it (currently “>>>> “ and
>>>“…up[2spaces]-to-be…”.
>>
>>>The second one works fine.
>>
>>The second one redirects to the same long url, which is why I get THE
>>EXACT SAME ERROR MESSAGE, not an error message regarding the shortened
>>url. It's a bit of a mystery.
>
>Have you tried with a different browser,

Yes, three (I think I said that earlier).

>and maybe on a different device?

Yes, and that works, which proves it's not my connectivity. Or perhaps
not the browser, because that's the same as I used to begin with.
--
Roland Perry

On 15/12/2023 07:47, Bob wrote:
> On 14.12.2023 17:23, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 15:50:25 -0000 (UTC)
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 18:41:06 +0000
>>>> Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/12/2023 09:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 18:15:17 +0100
>>>>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11.12.2023 12:53, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>>>>>>> My understanding was that the min distinction between
>>>>>>>> 'Underground' and
>>>>>>>> 'Metro' is that 'Metro' is heavy Rail while 'Underground' is
>>>>>>>> light rail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem is there isn't a consistent distinction between heavy
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> light rail. The term has been used for a variety of purposes over
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> years, often inconsistently, for an inconsistent collection of
>>>>>>> railway
>>>>>>> schemes, both proposed and realised. In the London context, the
>>>>>>> DLR was
>>>>>>> proposed as "light rail" specifically in contrast with the
>>>>>>> earlier Fleet
>>>>>>> line proposal to extend what became the Jubilee line east to
>>>>>>> serve the
>>>>>>> Docklands area, with the implication that the Tube is not "light
>>>>>>> rail".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My interpretation of light rail is somewhat flimsily built
>>>>>> vehicles with a
>>>>>> shorter lifespan than normal trains that can negotiate tight
>>>>>> curves and
>>>>>> carry more passengers than a bus but less than a heavy rail train.
>>>>>
>>>>> The vehicles on the Glasgow Subway and the Tyne and Wear Metro are
>>>>> both
>>>>> about 43 years old and commonly described as "light rail". Is that
>>>>> a shorter
>>>
>>>>> lifespan?
>>>>
>>>> Its a set of things, they don't all need to be true. As for the glasgow
>>>> subway/underground/whatever its called this week, the train cars are
>>>> about
>>>> the size of a transit van so its more like a fairground ride than
>>>> light rail.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Do you have stretch Transit vans round your way? Glasgow subway cars are
>>> 12.6 metres long, compared to approx 17.7m for tube stock (give or take
>>> depending on variant). Subway tunnel 11ft diameter compared to 11ft 8
>>> inches for London *tubes*.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole
>
> A US-only sporting competition that's even bigger than the Superbowl.
>

10/10

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 13:59:51 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <35qmnit4lc8cgffj0bpm24najvvi8mm3h9@4ax.com>, at 20:42:56 on
>Thu, 14 Dec 2023, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>remarked:
>>On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 18:27:13 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <ulcno0$u5nd$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:56:32 on Wed, 13 Dec
>>>2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <kttfahFj6esU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:28:32 on Wed, 13
>>>>> Dec 2023, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>>>> <https://medium.com/swlh/cam-metro-cfbc6d9d0a22>
>>>>>
>>>>> That gives the same error message.
>>>>
>>>>The first one worked fine for me until it started getting wrapping and
>>>>extra spaces included in it (currently “>>>> “ and
>>>>“…up[2spaces]-to-be…”.
>>>
>>>>The second one works fine.
>>>
>>>The second one redirects to the same long url, which is why I get THE
>>>EXACT SAME ERROR MESSAGE, not an error message regarding the shortened
>>>url. It's a bit of a mystery.
>>
>>Have you tried with a different browser,
>
>Yes, three (I think I said that earlier).
>
>>and maybe on a different device?
>
>Yes, and that works, which proves it's not my connectivity. Or perhaps
>not the browser, because that's the same as I used to begin with.

I suspect it demonstrates that it is the device, though.

Mark

In message <m07snilo6t6djmr2tfpbh7fo3jeq7jmprh@4ax.com>, at 21:53:23 on
Sat, 16 Dec 2023, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 13:59:51 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <35qmnit4lc8cgffj0bpm24najvvi8mm3h9@4ax.com>, at 20:42:56 on
>>Thu, 14 Dec 2023, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>>remarked:
>>>On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 18:27:13 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <ulcno0$u5nd$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:56:32 on Wed, 13 Dec
>>>>2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <kttfahFj6esU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:28:32 on Wed, 13
>>>>>> Dec 2023, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>>> <https://medium.com/swlh/cam-metro-cfbc6d9d0a22>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That gives the same error message.
>>>>>
>>>>>The first one worked fine for me until it started getting wrapping and
>>>>>extra spaces included in it (currently “>>>> “ and
>>>>>“…up[2spaces]-to-be…”.
>>>>
>>>>>The second one works fine.
>>>>
>>>>The second one redirects to the same long url, which is why I get THE
>>>>EXACT SAME ERROR MESSAGE, not an error message regarding the shortened
>>>>url. It's a bit of a mystery.
>>>
>>>Have you tried with a different browser,
>>
>>Yes, three (I think I said that earlier).
>>
>>>and maybe on a different device?
>>
>>Yes, and that works, which proves it's not my connectivity. Or perhaps
>>not the browser, because that's the same as I used to begin with.
>
>I suspect it demonstrates that it is the device, though.

Apparently so, although the device doesn't have any issues looking at
other websites; so there's *also* something odd about the site, because
of the way it uniquely takes a dislike so some characteristic of my
device.
--
Roland Perry

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> As expected, the all-new £419m Thameslink station opened today. Apparently
> it's the first all-new mainline station in London in a decade, and has four
> 12-car platforms. Confusingly, it's not really aimed at visitors to Brent
> Cross shopping centre, which is 20 minutes walk away, but at the major new
> Brent Cross Town development.
>
> Geoff's video: https://youtu.be/cdybq0_R_g4?si=6R9Zv1-Q5kK7x23B
>
> It allseems quite impressive.

I noted while passing through today that the new station has not been
fitted with the suicide-prevention fences that the stations before and
after it have - the ones preventing access to the fast lines.

A change in policy, or an oversight..?

Lew

On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 13:56:54 -0000 (UTC), Lew1 <email@nowhere.com> wrote:

>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> As expected, the all-new £419m Thameslink station opened today. Apparently
>> it's the first all-new mainline station in London in a decade, and has four
>> 12-car platforms. Confusingly, it's not really aimed at visitors to Brent
>> Cross shopping centre, which is 20 minutes walk away, but at the major new
>> Brent Cross Town development.
>>
>> Geoff's video: https://youtu.be/cdybq0_R_g4?si=6R9Zv1-Q5kK7x23B
>>
>> It allseems quite impressive.
>
>I noted while passing through today that the new station has not been
>fitted with the suicide-prevention fences that the stations before and
>after it have - the ones preventing access to the fast lines.
>
>A change in policy, or an oversight..?

I believe those are upstairs, near the ticket barriers. That's a much more efficient place to put them.

In uk.transport.london Lew1 <email@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> > As expected, the all-new £419m Thameslink station opened today. Apparently
> > it's the first all-new mainline station in London in a decade, and has four
> > 12-car platforms. Confusingly, it's not really aimed at visitors to Brent
> > Cross shopping centre, which is 20 minutes walk away, but at the major new
> > Brent Cross Town development.
> >
> > Geoff's video: https://youtu.be/cdybq0_R_g4?si=6R9Zv1-Q5kK7x23B
> >
> > It allseems quite impressive.
>
> I noted while passing through today that the new station has not been
> fitted with the suicide-prevention fences that the stations before and
> after it have - the ones preventing access to the fast lines.
>
> A change in policy, or an oversight..?

I thought the idea is (some) trains will stop on the fast lines? That's why
they've built a whole platform for them and installed a lift. Maybe not the
regular service to begin with, but at times of disruption, engineering etc,
and maybe more once the nearby development is completed?

Theo

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> In uk.transport.london Lew1 <email@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> As expected, the all-new £419m Thameslink station opened today. Apparently
>>> it's the first all-new mainline station in London in a decade, and has four
>>> 12-car platforms. Confusingly, it's not really aimed at visitors to Brent
>>> Cross shopping centre, which is 20 minutes walk away, but at the major new
>>> Brent Cross Town development.
>>>
>>> Geoff's video: https://youtu.be/cdybq0_R_g4?si=6R9Zv1-Q5kK7x23B
>>>
>>> It allseems quite impressive.
>>
>> I noted while passing through today that the new station has not been
>> fitted with the suicide-prevention fences that the stations before and
>> after it have - the ones preventing access to the fast lines.
>>
>> A change in policy, or an oversight..?
>
> I thought the idea is (some) trains will stop on the fast lines? That's why
> they've built a whole platform for them and installed a lift. Maybe not the
> regular service to begin with, but at times of disruption, engineering etc,
> and maybe more once the nearby development is completed?

Exactly. They can open the upstairs barriers in such circumstances.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 13:56:54 -0000 (UTC), Lew1 <email@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> As expected, the all-new £419m Thameslink station opened today. Apparently
>>> it's the first all-new mainline station in London in a decade, and has four
>>> 12-car platforms. Confusingly, it's not really aimed at visitors to Brent
>>> Cross shopping centre, which is 20 minutes walk away, but at the major new
>>> Brent Cross Town development.
>>>
>>> Geoff's video: https://youtu.be/cdybq0_R_g4?si=6R9Zv1-Q5kK7x23B
>>>
>>> It allseems quite impressive.
>>
>> I noted while passing through today that the new station has not been
>> fitted with the suicide-prevention fences that the stations before and
>> after it have - the ones preventing access to the fast lines.
>>
>> A change in policy, or an oversight..?
>
> I believe those are upstairs, near the ticket barriers. That's a much
> more efficient place to put them.
>

Ah, of course! And because it’s two island platforms, that works well.

Lew

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> In uk.transport.london Lew1 <email@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> As expected, the all-new £419m Thameslink station opened today. Apparently
>>> it's the first all-new mainline station in London in a decade, and has four
>>> 12-car platforms. Confusingly, it's not really aimed at visitors to Brent
>>> Cross shopping centre, which is 20 minutes walk away, but at the major new
>>> Brent Cross Town development.
>>>
>>> Geoff's video: https://youtu.be/cdybq0_R_g4?si=6R9Zv1-Q5kK7x23B
>>>
>>> It allseems quite impressive.
>>
>> I noted while passing through today that the new station has not been
>> fitted with the suicide-prevention fences that the stations before and
>> after it have - the ones preventing access to the fast lines.
>>
>> A change in policy, or an oversight..?
>
> I thought the idea is (some) trains will stop on the fast lines? That's why
> they've built a whole platform for them and installed a lift. Maybe not the
> regular service to begin with, but at times of disruption, engineering etc,
> and maybe more once the nearby development is completed?
>
>

That hasn't prevented the installation of fences at GWML stations - the
large gates in them are opened by station staff when a train requires to
call on the main lines.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 13:56:54 -0000 (UTC), Lew1 <email@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> As expected, the all-new £419m Thameslink station opened today. Apparently
>>> it's the first all-new mainline station in London in a decade, and has four
>>> 12-car platforms. Confusingly, it's not really aimed at visitors to Brent
>>> Cross shopping centre, which is 20 minutes walk away, but at the major new
>>> Brent Cross Town development.
>>>
>>> Geoff's video: https://youtu.be/cdybq0_R_g4?si=6R9Zv1-Q5kK7x23B
>>>
>>> It allseems quite impressive.
>>
>> I noted while passing through today that the new station has not been
>> fitted with the suicide-prevention fences that the stations before and
>> after it have - the ones preventing access to the fast lines.
>>
>> A change in policy, or an oversight..?
>
> I believe those are upstairs, near the ticket barriers. That's a much
> more efficient place to put them.
>

Indeed with island platforms, one island serving fast lines and one serving
slow lines, isn't it the *only* place you could put them? I'm not sure how
they'd work at platform level!

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 20/12/2023 03:36, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> In uk.transport.london Lew1 <email@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> As expected, the all-new £419m Thameslink station opened today. Apparently
>>>> it's the first all-new mainline station in London in a decade, and has four
>>>> 12-car platforms. Confusingly, it's not really aimed at visitors to Brent
>>>> Cross shopping centre, which is 20 minutes walk away, but at the major new
>>>> Brent Cross Town development.
>>>>
>>>> Geoff's video: https://youtu.be/cdybq0_R_g4?si=6R9Zv1-Q5kK7x23B
>>>>
>>>> It allseems quite impressive.
>>>
>>> I noted while passing through today that the new station has not been
>>> fitted with the suicide-prevention fences that the stations before and
>>> after it have - the ones preventing access to the fast lines.
>>>
>>> A change in policy, or an oversight..?
>>
>> I thought the idea is (some) trains will stop on the fast lines? That's why
>> they've built a whole platform for them and installed a lift. Maybe not the
>> regular service to begin with, but at times of disruption, engineering etc,
>> and maybe more once the nearby development is completed?
>>
>>
>
> That hasn't prevented the installation of fences at GWML stations - the
> large gates in them are opened by station staff when a train requires to
> call on the main lines.
>

Similarly, SWR have one at Wimbledon.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.