The two EU countries may share a common track gauge, but not much else

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/82da1446-3ad7-47c9-bf41-86d00502a4f4?shareToken=8dce1a917e78d7403fb479641906adce

On 01/01/2024 12:29, Recliner wrote:
> The two EU countries may share a common track gauge, but not much else
>
> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/82da1446-3ad7-47c9-bf41-86d00502a4f4?shareToken=8dce1a917e78d7403fb479641906adce
>
>

That's a good name for a reporter on broad gauge railways!
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 01/01/2024 12:29, Recliner wrote:
>> The two EU countries may share a common track gauge, but not much else
>>
>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/82da1446-3ad7-47c9-bf41-86d00502a4f4?shareToken=8dce1a917e78d7403fb479641906adce
>>
>>
>
> That's a good name for a reporter on broad gauge railways!

Roughly 20 flights per day between Madrid and Lisbon is why the train isn’t
viable. Single fares are sub £50 according to sky scanner.

According to Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>:
>Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 01/01/2024 12:29, Recliner wrote:
>>> The two EU countries may share a common track gauge, but not much else
>>>
>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/82da1446-3ad7-47c9-bf41-86d00502a4f4?shareToken=8dce1a917e78d7403fb479641906adce
>Roughly 20 flights per day between Madrid and Lisbon is why the train isn’t
>viable. Single fares are sub £50 according to sky scanner.

There were lots of flights between Paris and Lyon before they built
the TGV. I think you're conflating cause and effect.

As the article says, driving is far faster than the train. The speed
limit on the highway is 120 kph and any decent train should be faster
than that.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> According to Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>:
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 01/01/2024 12:29, Recliner wrote:
>>>> The two EU countries may share a common track gauge, but not much else
>>>>
>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/82da1446-3ad7-47c9-bf41-86d00502a4f4?shareToken=8dce1a917e78d7403fb479641906adce
>> Roughly 20 flights per day between Madrid and Lisbon is why the train isn’t
>> viable. Single fares are sub £50 according to sky scanner.
>
> There were lots of flights between Paris and Lyon before they built
> the TGV. I think you're conflating cause and effect.
>
> As the article says, driving is far faster than the train. The speed
> limit on the highway is 120 kph and any decent train should be faster
> than that.
>

The TGV isn’t doing that well - they’ve had to introduce a cut price
service because passengers were defecting to cheaper coach services.

600km Lisbon to Madrid. 50 minutes by air (plus airport faffing around),
£50 one way. Is it going to be economic to compete with that by rail?

On Mon, 01 Jan 2024 12:29:29 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:

>The two EU countries may share a common track gauge, but not much else
>
>https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/82da1446-3ad7-47c9-bf41-86d00502a4f4?shareToken=8dce1a917e78d7403fb479641906adce
>

"We found our one-carriage engine on a side platform."

Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Jan 2024 12:29:29 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The two EU countries may share a common track gauge, but not much else
>>
>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/82da1446-3ad7-47c9-bf41-86d00502a4f4?shareToken=8dce1a917e78d7403fb479641906adce
>>
>
> "We found our one-carriage engine on a side platform."
>

I suppose, if there's just one carriage (with its own engine), it's not a
train, but a railcar. But I wouldn't expect a non-specialist journalist to
know that term, despite being called Isambard.

According to Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>:
>> As the article says, driving is far faster than the train. The speed
>> limit on the highway is 120 kph and any decent train should be faster
>> than that.
>
>The TGV isn’t doing that well - they’ve had to introduce a cut price
>service because passengers were defecting to cheaper coach services.

So long as it covers costs, so what? It's not like they're the only
ones segmenting service by price sensitivity.

>600km Lisbon to Madrid. 50 minutes by air (plus airport faffing around),
>£50 one way. Is it going to be economic to compete with that by rail?

You're making the same mistake railway promoters in the 1840s made,
assuming that only end to end traffic matters, while in reality every
railway also has a lot of traffic at intermediate stops.

A few years ago there was a plan to build an AVE route that would get
you from Madrid to Lisbon in 2:45, which seems competitive for
downtown to downtown with no airport security and luggage nonsense.
They're still working on the Spanish part of it, and apparently the
Portuguese government has uncancelled their part:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid%E2%80%93Extremadura_high-speed_rail_line

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> According to Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>:
>>> As the article says, driving is far faster than the train. The speed
>>> limit on the highway is 120 kph and any decent train should be faster
>>> than that.
>>
>> The TGV isn’t doing that well - they’ve had to introduce a cut price
>> service because passengers were defecting to cheaper coach services.
>
> So long as it covers costs, so what? It's not like they're the only
> ones segmenting service by price sensitivity.
>
>> 600km Lisbon to Madrid. 50 minutes by air (plus airport faffing around),
>> £50 one way. Is it going to be economic to compete with that by rail?
>
> You're making the same mistake railway promoters in the 1840s made,
> assuming that only end to end traffic matters, while in reality every
> railway also has a lot of traffic at intermediate stops.
>
> A few years ago there was a plan to build an AVE route that would get
> you from Madrid to Lisbon in 2:45, which seems competitive for
> downtown to downtown with no airport security and luggage nonsense.
> They're still working on the Spanish part of it, and apparently the
> Portuguese government has uncancelled their part:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid%E2%80%93Extremadura_high-speed_rail_line
>

I grant you that 2:45 would be competitive. Don’t Spanish HS lines have
security though?
Anyway, the basis of the article was wrong, ie that Lisbon and Madrid turn
their backs on each other. The volume of air traffic knocks that on the
head.

On Mon, 01 Jan 2024 17:16:30 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Jan 2024 12:29:29 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The two EU countries may share a common track gauge, but not much else
>>>
>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/82da1446-3ad7-47c9-bf41-86d00502a4f4?shareToken=8dce1a917e78d7403fb479641906adce
>>>
>>
>> "We found our one-carriage engine on a side platform."
>>
>
>I suppose, if there's just one carriage (with its own engine), it's not a
>train, but a railcar. But I wouldn't expect a non-specialist journalist to
>know that term, despite being called Isambard.

I *no*... my head is dented from fighting this lack of general
knowledge of the type which once would have been caught by experienced
copy editors. I doubt the venerated *Times* uses any.

Even *one-carriage train* would've passed muster.

Common English-language vocabulary/definition usage continues to head
downhill.

PS Then I reflect on the strange olde Brit expression of a *motor* to
describe the whole moving vehicle which to me would be an
auto/automobile or car. (And I think we'd be beyond the horseless
carriage stage [oops] by then). Aussie railway operators also picked
on that description, with *rail motors* for self-propelled
vee-hick-ells.

There's a mis-carriage of language going on... <g>

Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Jan 2024 17:16:30 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 01 Jan 2024 12:29:29 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The two EU countries may share a common track gauge, but not much else
>>>>
>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/82da1446-3ad7-47c9-bf41-86d00502a4f4?shareToken=8dce1a917e78d7403fb479641906adce
>>>>
>>>
>>> "We found our one-carriage engine on a side platform."
>>>
>>
>> I suppose, if there's just one carriage (with its own engine), it's not a
>> train, but a railcar. But I wouldn't expect a non-specialist journalist to
>> know that term, despite being called Isambard.
>
> I *no*... my head is dented from fighting this lack of general
> knowledge of the type which once would have been caught by experienced
> copy editors. I doubt the venerated *Times* uses any.
>
> Even *one-carriage train* would've passed muster.

Surely, by definition, there can be no such thing?

>
> Common English-language vocabulary/definition usage continues to head
> downhill.
>
> PS Then I reflect on the strange olde Brit expression of a *motor* to
> describe the whole moving vehicle which to me would be an
> auto/automobile or car. (And I think we'd be beyond the horseless
> carriage stage [oops] by then). Aussie railway operators also picked
> on that description, with *rail motors* for self-propelled
> vee-hick-ells.
>
> There's a mis-carriage of language going on... <g>
>

Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Jan 2024 17:16:30 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 01 Jan 2024 12:29:29 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The two EU countries may share a common track gauge, but not much else
>>>>
>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/82da1446-3ad7-47c9-bf41-86d00502a4f4?shareToken=8dce1a917e78d7403fb479641906adce
>>>>
>>>
>>> "We found our one-carriage engine on a side platform."
>>>
>>
>> I suppose, if there's just one carriage (with its own engine), it's not a
>> train, but a railcar. But I wouldn't expect a non-specialist journalist to
>> know that term, despite being called Isambard.
>
> I *no*... my head is dented from fighting this lack of general
> knowledge of the type which once would have been caught by experienced
> copy editors. I doubt the venerated *Times* uses any.
>
> Even *one-carriage train* would've passed muster.
>
> Common English-language vocabulary/definition usage continues to head
> downhill.
>
> PS Then I reflect on the strange olde Brit expression of a *motor* to
> describe the whole moving vehicle which to me would be an
> auto/automobile or car. (And I think we'd be beyond the horseless
> carriage stage [oops] by then). Aussie railway operators also picked
> on that description, with *rail motors* for self-propelled
> vee-hick-ells.
>
> There's a mis-carriage of language going on... <g>
>

The use of Steam or Diesel engine is another example when describing the
vehicle that hauls other rail vehicles though the latter is less common
than the first. The whole is a locomotive, the engine part on a Steam
Locomotive are the cylinders ,valve gear connecting rods etc not the boiler
or other parts.

GH

Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:

>
> PS Then I reflect on the strange olde Brit expression of a *motor* to
> describe the whole moving vehicle which to me would be an
> auto/automobile or car. (And I think we'd be beyond the horseless
> carriage stage [oops] by then).

Have never really found “Motor” to be widely used. It seems to be the
preserve of that London dialect that isn’t genuine Cockney but has grown
with the City . As such you often here it used by often slightly dodgy
types in B movies or TV series such as the Sweeney.
I suppose the showing of those overseas may give the impression its use is
more common than it really is , pimply youths may use it for it while while
turning their reliable but boring 1st car into an unreliable noisy junk
heap by sticking bits on and cutting other parts off so people “Look at my
Mota”
but most grow out of it.

GH

Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
> Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> PS Then I reflect on the strange olde Brit expression of a *motor* to
>> describe the whole moving vehicle which to me would be an
>> auto/automobile or car. (And I think we'd be beyond the horseless
>> carriage stage [oops] by then).
>
> Have never really found “Motor” to be widely used. It seems to be the
> preserve of that London dialect that isn’t genuine Cockney but has grown
> with the City . As such you often here it used by often slightly dodgy
> types in B movies or TV series such as the Sweeney.
> I suppose the showing of those overseas may give the impression its use is
> more common than it really is , pimply youths may use it for it while while
> turning their reliable but boring 1st car into an unreliable noisy junk
> heap by sticking bits on and cutting other parts off so people “Look at my
> Mota”
> but most grow out of it.

It seemed to be common in my grandfather’s generation - born near the end
of the C19.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 16:33:17 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>> Have never really found “Motor” to be widely used. It seems to be the

Can't you people use UTF8? What the hell is that line noise?

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>> Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> PS Then I reflect on the strange olde Brit expression of a *motor* to
>>> describe the whole moving vehicle which to me would be an
>>> auto/automobile or car. (And I think we'd be beyond the horseless
>>> carriage stage [oops] by then).
>>
>> Have never really found “Motor” to be widely used. It seems to be the
>> preserve of that London dialect that isn’t genuine Cockney but has grown
>> with the City . As such you often here it used by often slightly dodgy
>> types in B movies or TV series such as the Sweeney.
>> I suppose the showing of those overseas may give the impression its use is
>> more common than it really is , pimply youths may use it for it while while
>> turning their reliable but boring 1st car into an unreliable noisy junk
>> heap by sticking bits on and cutting other parts off so people “Look at my
>> Mota”
>> but most grow out of it.
>
> It seemed to be common in my grandfather’s generation - born near the end
> of the C19.

Yes, I think that was typical pre-War usage. And don't forget

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Motor

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 16:33:17 -0000 (UTC)
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Have never really found “Motor” to be widely used. It seems to be the
>
> Can't you people use UTF8? What the hell is that line noise?

That’s Marland’s text you’re quoting, not mine, and it looks perfectly
normal here.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 16:33:17 -0000 (UTC)
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Have never really found “Motor” to be widely used. It seems to be the
>>
>> Can't you people use UTF8? What the hell is that line noise?
>
> That’s Marland’s text you’re quoting, not mine, and it looks perfectly
> normal here.

Yes, and here.

On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 16:43:13 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 16:33:17 -0000 (UTC)
>Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Have never really found “Motorâ€? to be widely used. It seems to be the
>
>Can't you people use UTF8? What the hell is that line noise?
>

The only appearance I see it fuddleduddled is in your mis-attributed
grumble.

On Tue, 02 Jan 2024 23:22:45 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 16:33:17 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Have never really found “Motor” to be widely used. It seems to be the
>>>
>>> Can't you people use UTF8? What the hell is that line noise?
>>
>> That’s Marland’s text you’re quoting, not mine, and it looks perfectly
>> normal here.
>
>Yes, and here.
>
Not here with Forte Agent.

On Wed, 03 Jan 2024 02:51:01 +0000, Charles Ellson
<charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Jan 2024 23:22:45 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 16:33:17 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> Have never really found “Motor” to be widely used. It seems to be the
>>>>
>>>> Can't you people use UTF8? What the hell is that line noise?
>>>
>>> That’s Marland’s text you’re quoting, not mine, and it looks perfectly
>>> normal here.
>>
>>Yes, and here.
>>
>Not here with Forte Agent.
>
But I see I have Unicode UTF-8 available so I will try that.

On Wed, 03 Jan 2024 03:01:11 +0000, Charles Ellson
<charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 03 Jan 2024 02:51:01 +0000, Charles Ellson
><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 02 Jan 2024 23:22:45 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 16:33:17 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> Have never really found “Motor” to be widely used. It seems to be the
>>>>>
>>>>> Can't you people use UTF8? What the hell is that line noise?
>>>>
>>>> That’s Marland’s text you’re quoting, not mine, and it looks perfectly
>>>> normal here.
>>>
>>>Yes, and here.
>>>
>>Not here with Forte Agent.
>>
>But I see I have Unicode UTF-8 available so I will try that.
>
Now getting quote marks instead of Klingon.

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2024 03:01:11 +0000, Charles Ellson
> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 03 Jan 2024 02:51:01 +0000, Charles Ellson
>> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 02 Jan 2024 23:22:45 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 16:33:17 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Have never really found “Motor” to be widely used. It seems to be the
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can't you people use UTF8? What the hell is that line noise?
>>>>>
>>>>> That’s Marland’s text you’re quoting, not mine, and it looks perfectly
>>>>> normal here.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, and here.
>>>>
>>> Not here with Forte Agent.
>>>
>> But I see I have Unicode UTF-8 available so I will try that.
>>
> Now getting quote marks instead of Klingon.

Yes, that's what you should be seeing.

On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 23:16:25 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 16:33:17 -0000 (UTC)
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Have never really found “Motor” to be widely used. It seems to be the
>>
>> Can't you people use UTF8? What the hell is that line noise?
>
>That’s Marland’s text you’re quoting, not mine, and it looks perfectly
>normal here.

Well god knows what encoding it is , I just get gibberish. The header states
utf8 but none of my utf8 enabled apps can decode it.

On Wed, 03 Jan 2024 03:02:32 +0000
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Jan 2024 03:01:11 +0000, Charles Ellson
><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Jan 2024 02:51:01 +0000, Charles Ellson
>><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 02 Jan 2024 23:22:45 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 16:33:17 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Have never really found �Motor� to be widely used. It seems to be the
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can't you people use UTF8? What the hell is that line noise?
>>>>>
>>>>> That�s Marland�s text you�re quoting, not mine, and it looks perfectly
>>>>> normal here.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, and here.
>>>>
>>>Not here with Forte Agent.
>>>
>>But I see I have Unicode UTF-8 available so I will try that.
>>
>Now getting quote marks instead of Klingon.

That rather begs the question of whats wrong with plain ascii quotes, ie ""