In message <a7d59208c4a93eb503f9ee1f09d5d123@www.novabbs.org>, at
15:35:32 on Sat, 20 Apr 2024, ulf_kutzner <Ulf.Kutzner@web.de> remarked:
>Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> In message <j0vk1j985nab1qie8ue0dp7gqii9pn3jnd@4ax.com>, at 13:41:26
>>on Sat, 13 Apr 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 22:46:47 +0200, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 11.04.2024 20:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <uv3lku$9mdi$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:08:14 on Tue, 9 Apr
>>>>> 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On 09.04.2024 13:06, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <uv2p9h$2uq9$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:04:17 on Tue, 9 Apr
>>>>>>> 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On 09.04.2024 08:33, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>>>> We were out for a walk near some of the newly installed MML OHLE. I
>>>>>>>>> looked  at it and thought that’s some interesting engineering. My
>>>>>>>>> wife then  remarks  that it was very ugly and spoilt the
>>>>>>>>> countryside. She then wanted to  know  what advantage we might see
>>>>>>>>> from it. Having given it a bit of  thought, as  an ordinary
>>>>>>>>> passenger probably very little. The journey won’t be significantly
>>>>>>>>> faster and I very much doubt that the fares will come  down.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The advantages are that it exists at all,
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  By why not continue to use the existing motive power? It's greenwash
>>>>>>> that retiring a few diesel locos will make the slightest difference
>>>>>>> to overall carbon footprint or air pollution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> by using cheaper methods of installation that bring the costs from
>>>>>>>> "too high" to "affordable", and the lower levels of disruption
>>>>>>>> needed for installation and ongoing maintenance.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Talking about maintenance, OHL is a nightmare, not only does it keep
>>>>>>> falling down, but if there's track works required then huge sections
>>>>>>> of  the line are de-energised, and even diesels excluded from the
>>>>>>> area in  question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Diesel engines are a maintenance nightmare. They are expensive and
>>>>>> labour intensive to maintain, and heavyweight, so damaging to the
>>>>>> permanent way. Economic analyses have shown time and again that for a
>>>>>> mainline with a reasonably inensive service, considering whole life
>>>>>> costs, electrification is the cheaper solution.
>>>>>
>>>>> As long as you don't count the costs of passenger delay when the lines
>>>>> fall down, or when there are speed restrictions due to wind.
>>>>
>>>>You could also consider how the class 175 and 180s created massive
>>>>inconvenience to passengers when they broke down repeatedly.
>>>>
>>>>Taking badly designed and penny-pinching applications of a technology as
>>>>the defining examples of a technology will never give an accurate
>>>>interpretation of what the technology can actually deliver when done right.
>>>>
>>>>It is illustrative that pretty well every railway globally that aims to
>>>>provide a level of service that is more than mininally intensive has
>>>>elected for electric service. Basically the only place globally where
>>>>that has failed to happen is North America where perverse incentives
>>>>based on taxation of improved land have skewed the economics due to
>>>>non-railway related reasons have led to large scale non-electric operations.
>>>>
>>>>> Diesels are also potentially more versatile for diversions.
>>>>
>>>>Only where sparse electrification persists. Few other countries that
>>>>take a balanced view of railway economics have secondary mainlines that
>>>>are non-electrified.
>>>
>>>I think this may be the key reason why Brits regard OHLE as being
>>>very unreliable. It's not so much that our wires fall
>>>down more often (which may or may not be true), but that pretty much
>>>all the trains stop running when the wires come
>>>down on the GWML or ECML, as there are no parallel electrified
>>>diversion routes.
>>>
>>>The WCML is a bit better, and the third rail network in the south
>>>tends to have multiple electrified routes. In other countries, there
>>>are multiple electrified routes, so trains keep running when the
>>>wires come down, even if the service is reduced, and journey times are longer.
>
>> Not true. I've been marooned in the Netherlands in bad weather, when
>>trees (and sundry bits of station roof etc) have been blown onto the
>>wires, and they've thrown in the towel and just cancelled the lot.jp
>
>>>So OHLE failure doesn't make the headlines that they do here.
>
>> I'm impressed that you are reading the domestic press of dozens of
>>foreign countries and can so confidently say what they do and don't
>>report. Here in the UK we only get reports of foreign railway
>>happenings when there's a wreck with at least a dozen people killed.
>
>We are used to OHLE failures after storms, dozens of them seem
>to occur at least per year in Germany* but press coverage focuses
>on stranded passenger trains run out of aircon and ventilation
>and how passengers feel in such conditions after four hours.
>
>Regards, ULF
>
>*) IIRC, Munich couldn't be reached by rail from any side during
>one or two days about a year ago. Operations resumed between
>main and East station by suburban trains using the tunnel.

Thanks for posting that. I always get the impression Brits looking at
overseas railways have industrial-strength rose-tinted spectacles.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <a7d59208c4a93eb503f9ee1f09d5d123@www.novabbs.org>, at
> 15:35:32 on Sat, 20 Apr 2024, ulf_kutzner <Ulf.Kutzner@web.de> remarked:
>> Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>>> In message <j0vk1j985nab1qie8ue0dp7gqii9pn3jnd@4ax.com>, at 13:41:26
>>> on Sat, 13 Apr 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 22:46:47 +0200, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11.04.2024 20:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <uv3lku$9mdi$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:08:14 on Tue, 9 Apr
>>>>>> 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 09.04.2024 13:06, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <uv2p9h$2uq9$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:04:17 on Tue, 9 Apr
>>>>>>>> 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On 09.04.2024 08:33, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> We were out for a walk near some of the newly installed MML OHLE. I
>>>>>>>>>> looked  at it and thought that’s some interesting engineering. My
>>>>>>>>>> wife then  remarks  that it was very ugly and spoilt the
>>>>>>>>>> countryside. She then wanted to  know  what advantage we might see
>>>>>>>>>> from it. Having given it a bit of  thought, as  an ordinary
>>>>>>>>>> passenger probably very little. The journey won’t be significantly
>>>>>>>>>> faster and I very much doubt that the fares will come  down.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The advantages are that it exists at all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  By why not continue to use the existing motive power? It's greenwash
>>>>>>>> that retiring a few diesel locos will make the slightest difference
>>>>>>>> to overall carbon footprint or air pollution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> by using cheaper methods of installation that bring the costs from
>>>>>>>>> "too high" to "affordable", and the lower levels of disruption
>>>>>>>>> needed for installation and ongoing maintenance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  Talking about maintenance, OHL is a nightmare, not only does it keep
>>>>>>>> falling down, but if there's track works required then huge sections
>>>>>>>> of  the line are de-energised, and even diesels excluded from the
>>>>>>>> area in  question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Diesel engines are a maintenance nightmare. They are expensive and
>>>>>>> labour intensive to maintain, and heavyweight, so damaging to the
>>>>>>> permanent way. Economic analyses have shown time and again that for a
>>>>>>> mainline with a reasonably inensive service, considering whole life
>>>>>>> costs, electrification is the cheaper solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As long as you don't count the costs of passenger delay when the lines
>>>>>> fall down, or when there are speed restrictions due to wind.
>>>>>
>>>>> You could also consider how the class 175 and 180s created massive
>>>>> inconvenience to passengers when they broke down repeatedly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Taking badly designed and penny-pinching applications of a technology as
>>>>> the defining examples of a technology will never give an accurate
>>>>> interpretation of what the technology can actually deliver when done right.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is illustrative that pretty well every railway globally that aims to
>>>>> provide a level of service that is more than mininally intensive has
>>>>> elected for electric service. Basically the only place globally where
>>>>> that has failed to happen is North America where perverse incentives
>>>>> based on taxation of improved land have skewed the economics due to
>>>>> non-railway related reasons have led to large scale non-electric operations.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Diesels are also potentially more versatile for diversions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only where sparse electrification persists. Few other countries that
>>>>> take a balanced view of railway economics have secondary mainlines that
>>>>> are non-electrified.
>>>>
>>>> I think this may be the key reason why Brits regard OHLE as being
>>>> very unreliable. It's not so much that our wires fall
>>>> down more often (which may or may not be true), but that pretty much
>>>> all the trains stop running when the wires come
>>>> down on the GWML or ECML, as there are no parallel electrified
>>>> diversion routes.
>>>>
>>>> The WCML is a bit better, and the third rail network in the south
>>>> tends to have multiple electrified routes. In other countries, there
>>>> are multiple electrified routes, so trains keep running when the
>>>> wires come down, even if the service is reduced, and journey times are longer.
>>
>>> Not true. I've been marooned in the Netherlands in bad weather, when
>>> trees (and sundry bits of station roof etc) have been blown onto the
>>> wires, and they've thrown in the towel and just cancelled the lot.jp
>>
>>>> So OHLE failure doesn't make the headlines that they do here.
>>
>>> I'm impressed that you are reading the domestic press of dozens of
>>> foreign countries and can so confidently say what they do and don't
>>> report. Here in the UK we only get reports of foreign railway
>>> happenings when there's a wreck with at least a dozen people killed.
>>
>> We are used to OHLE failures after storms, dozens of them seem
>> to occur at least per year in Germany* but press coverage focuses
>> on stranded passenger trains run out of aircon and ventilation
>> and how passengers feel in such conditions after four hours.
>>
>> Regards, ULF
>>
>> *) IIRC, Munich couldn't be reached by rail from any side during
>> one or two days about a year ago. Operations resumed between
>> main and East station by suburban trains using the tunnel.
>
> Thanks for posting that. I always get the impression Brits looking at
> overseas railways have industrial-strength rose-tinted spectacles.

No rose tinted spectacles in respect of German railways at the moment. They
seem to be suffering chronic delays on many long distance services. I
regularly get a tale of woe from a friend who commutes from Brussels to the
Black Forest.

The Swiss have lost patience with them and won’t let delayed DB trains into
Switzerland.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <a7d59208c4a93eb503f9ee1f09d5d123@www.novabbs.org>, at
>> 15:35:32 on Sat, 20 Apr 2024, ulf_kutzner <Ulf.Kutzner@web.de> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <j0vk1j985nab1qie8ue0dp7gqii9pn3jnd@4ax.com>, at 13:41:26
>>>> on Sat, 13 Apr 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 22:46:47 +0200, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11.04.2024 20:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <uv3lku$9mdi$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:08:14 on Tue, 9 Apr
>>>>>>> 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On 09.04.2024 13:06, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <uv2p9h$2uq9$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:04:17 on Tue, 9 Apr
>>>>>>>>> 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> On 09.04.2024 08:33, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> We were out for a walk near some of the newly installed MML OHLE. I
>>>>>>>>>>> looked  at it and thought that’s some interesting engineering. My
>>>>>>>>>>> wife then  remarks  that it was very ugly and spoilt the
>>>>>>>>>>> countryside. She then wanted to  know  what advantage we might see
>>>>>>>>>>> from it. Having given it a bit of  thought, as  an ordinary
>>>>>>>>>>> passenger probably very little. The journey won’t be significantly
>>>>>>>>>>> faster and I very much doubt that the fares will come  down.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The advantages are that it exists at all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  By why not continue to use the existing motive power? It's greenwash
>>>>>>>>> that retiring a few diesel locos will make the slightest difference
>>>>>>>>> to overall carbon footprint or air pollution.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> by using cheaper methods of installation that bring the costs from
>>>>>>>>>> "too high" to "affordable", and the lower levels of disruption
>>>>>>>>>> needed for installation and ongoing maintenance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Talking about maintenance, OHL is a nightmare, not only does it keep
>>>>>>>>> falling down, but if there's track works required then huge sections
>>>>>>>>> of  the line are de-energised, and even diesels excluded from the
>>>>>>>>> area in  question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Diesel engines are a maintenance nightmare. They are expensive and
>>>>>>>> labour intensive to maintain, and heavyweight, so damaging to the
>>>>>>>> permanent way. Economic analyses have shown time and again that for a
>>>>>>>> mainline with a reasonably inensive service, considering whole life
>>>>>>>> costs, electrification is the cheaper solution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As long as you don't count the costs of passenger delay when the lines
>>>>>>> fall down, or when there are speed restrictions due to wind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You could also consider how the class 175 and 180s created massive
>>>>>> inconvenience to passengers when they broke down repeatedly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Taking badly designed and penny-pinching applications of a technology as
>>>>>> the defining examples of a technology will never give an accurate
>>>>>> interpretation of what the technology can actually deliver when done right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is illustrative that pretty well every railway globally that aims to
>>>>>> provide a level of service that is more than mininally intensive has
>>>>>> elected for electric service. Basically the only place globally where
>>>>>> that has failed to happen is North America where perverse incentives
>>>>>> based on taxation of improved land have skewed the economics due to
>>>>>> non-railway related reasons have led to large scale non-electric operations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Diesels are also potentially more versatile for diversions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only where sparse electrification persists. Few other countries that
>>>>>> take a balanced view of railway economics have secondary mainlines that
>>>>>> are non-electrified.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this may be the key reason why Brits regard OHLE as being
>>>>> very unreliable. It's not so much that our wires fall
>>>>> down more often (which may or may not be true), but that pretty much
>>>>> all the trains stop running when the wires come
>>>>> down on the GWML or ECML, as there are no parallel electrified
>>>>> diversion routes.
>>>>>
>>>>> The WCML is a bit better, and the third rail network in the south
>>>>> tends to have multiple electrified routes. In other countries, there
>>>>> are multiple electrified routes, so trains keep running when the
>>>>> wires come down, even if the service is reduced, and journey times are longer.
>>>
>>>> Not true. I've been marooned in the Netherlands in bad weather, when
>>>> trees (and sundry bits of station roof etc) have been blown onto the
>>>> wires, and they've thrown in the towel and just cancelled the lot.jp
>>>
>>>>> So OHLE failure doesn't make the headlines that they do here.
>>>
>>>> I'm impressed that you are reading the domestic press of dozens of
>>>> foreign countries and can so confidently say what they do and don't
>>>> report. Here in the UK we only get reports of foreign railway
>>>> happenings when there's a wreck with at least a dozen people killed.
>>>
>>> We are used to OHLE failures after storms, dozens of them seem
>>> to occur at least per year in Germany* but press coverage focuses
>>> on stranded passenger trains run out of aircon and ventilation
>>> and how passengers feel in such conditions after four hours.
>>>
>>> Regards, ULF
>>>
>>> *) IIRC, Munich couldn't be reached by rail from any side during
>>> one or two days about a year ago. Operations resumed between
>>> main and East station by suburban trains using the tunnel.
>>
>> Thanks for posting that. I always get the impression Brits looking at
>> overseas railways have industrial-strength rose-tinted spectacles.
>
> No rose tinted spectacles in respect of German railways at the moment. They
> seem to be suffering chronic delays on many long distance services. I
> regularly get a tale of woe from a friend who commutes from Brussels to the
> Black Forest.
>
> The Swiss have lost patience with them and won’t let delayed DB trains into
> Switzerland.

Strictly speaking, they won't let any foreign trains continue on to
Switzerland's domestic network past the main border city station. Those
DB/SNCF/ORR/Trenitalia trains traditionally had a dual rule, continuing
their international journey and also filling a slot in the Swiss domestic
timetable.

But so many turn up late, or not all, forcing SBB to deploy its stand-by
trains to maintain the high precision Swiss timetable, that the Swiss have
lost patience. They've now announced that in future they won't let the
neighbours' unreliable trains operate domestic services on the reliable,
punctual Swiss network. Apparently only SNCF punctuality comes close to
Swiss standards, but I'm not sure if its trains will be exempted from the
ban.

Tweed wrote:

> No rose tinted spectacles in respect of German railways at the moment. They
> seem to be suffering chronic delays on many long distance services. I
> regularly get a tale of woe from a friend who commutes from Brussels to the
> Black Forest.

> The Swiss have lost patience with them and won’t let delayed DB trains into
> Switzerland.

Switzerland has enough issues with tunnels causing delays
and cancellations. Swiss trainsets operating from Munich
to Zurich do experience problems with country transitions,
thus causing delays that place the behind a semi-slow train.

Regards, ULF

ulf_kutzner <Ulf.Kutzner@web.de> wrote:
> ColinR wrote:
>
>> On 20/04/2024 16:44, ulf_kutzner wrote:
>>> Recliner wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:43:25 +0000, Ulf.Kutzner@web.de (ulf_kutzner)
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Recliner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> In Norway, the locals complain that their once-low, stable electricity
>>>>>> prices have shot up because the UK and Germany are effectively
>>>>>> out-bidding
>>>>>> them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Same with farmed salmon?
>>>
>>>> Don't thy farm them everywhere?
>>>
>>> Not here.
>
>> See below
>
>>>
>>>>  There's certainly a lot in Scotland.
>>>
>>> And I bought from Ireland but still UK is importing from Norway.
>>>
>>>> But, more surprisingly, I saw lots of Norwegian
>>>> fish farms in Chile, producing Atlantic salmon. Inevitably, some
>>>> escaped, so you can now get native, freshly caught,
>>>> wild Atlantic salmon in Chile!
>>>
>>> It's different even from wild Norwegian salmon which might have died out.
>>>
>>> Chile exports young farmed salmon to Norway to be sold after added
>>> farming time.
>>>
>>> Recently, I found Chilean somked salmon in a German supermarket, like
>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stremellachs.jpg
>
>
>
>> Norwegian salmon farming - see:
>> https://www.leroyseafood.com/en/
>
> Heard about it.
>
> 92 % of farmed salmon are from Norway, the United Kingdom, Canada, Chile,
> Australia und New Zealand, and some Norwegian farmed salmon immigrated
> from Chile.
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lachsfarm
>

‘They take everything, like Vikings’: inside the Icelandic salmon wars

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/9fa0aada-2829-42cd-b2bb-1c3a1d9c26ec?shareToken=9fafd07b7f04d5d82d73797893c5fd1f

Recliner wrote:

> ulf_kutzner <Ulf.Kutzner@web.de> wrote:
>> ColinR wrote:
>>
>>> On 20/04/2024 16:44, ulf_kutzner wrote:
>>>> Recliner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:43:25 +0000, Ulf.Kutzner@web.de (ulf_kutzner)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In Norway, the locals complain that their once-low, stable electricity
>>>>>>> prices have shot up because the UK and Germany are effectively
>>>>>>> out-bidding
>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Same with farmed salmon?
>>>>
>>>>> Don't thy farm them everywhere?
>>>>
>>>> Not here.
>>
>>> See below
>>
>>>>
>>>>>  There's certainly a lot in Scotland.
>>>>
>>>> And I bought from Ireland but still UK is importing from Norway.
>>>>
>>>>> But, more surprisingly, I saw lots of Norwegian
>>>>> fish farms in Chile, producing Atlantic salmon. Inevitably, some
>>>>> escaped, so you can now get native, freshly caught,
>>>>> wild Atlantic salmon in Chile!
>>>>
>>>> It's different even from wild Norwegian salmon which might have died out.
>>>>
>>>> Chile exports young farmed salmon to Norway to be sold after added
>>>> farming time.
>>>>
>>>> Recently, I found Chilean somked salmon in a German supermarket, like
>>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stremellachs.jpg
>>
>>
>>
>>> Norwegian salmon farming - see:
>>> https://www.leroyseafood.com/en/
>>
>> Heard about it.
>>
>> 92 % of farmed salmon are from Norway, the United Kingdom, Canada, Chile,
>> Australia und New Zealand, and some Norwegian farmed salmon immigrated
>> from Chile.
>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lachsfarm
>>

> ‘They take everything

By the way, I suggest Australia and New Zealand also farm Atlantic salmon?

And Narvik - Xi'an salmon trains did not start.
https://www.fishfarmermagazine.com/2020/02/10/russia-slams-brakes-on-salmon-train-project/

Regards, ULF

On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 16:14:41 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

>On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 15:21:41 +0000
>Ulf.Kutzner@web.de (ulf_kutzner) wrote:
>>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:16:59 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> There isn't close to enough agricultural land in the UK or many other
>>>>> countries to grow crops for aviation and even if there was , agriculture
>>>>> is a huge user of energy and a net emitter of CO2 once you account for
>>>>> fertilizer and diesel used in the crops production. Its a complete non
>>>>starter.
>>>>> If you need an example look at the farce that is bioethanol.
>>>>
>>>>I wouldn’t argue with that, but anything even half practical is unlikely to
>>
>>>>be produced by using only electricity, which is what your initial posting
>>>>suggested.
>>
>>> There is no process that is close to being practical for generating
>>> kerosene other getting it from crude oil. Sofa boy probably wishes it would
>>> be otherwise so can assuage his guilt about his gigantic carbon bootprint
>>from
>>> flying every month but physics says otherwise.
>>
>>Sun-to-liquid is possible, and there is a demonstrator plant IIRC.
>>https://www.sun-to-liquid.eu/
>>
>>But it's not cheap.
>
>A lot of sun for not much liquid. No one is claiming it can't be done,

That's exactly what you did: "Technology isn't the issue, physics is".

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 11:04:53 +0000, Ulf.Kutzner@web.de (ulf_kutzner) wrote:

>Recliner wrote:
>
>> ulf_kutzner <Ulf.Kutzner@web.de> wrote:
>>> ColinR wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 20/04/2024 16:44, ulf_kutzner wrote:
>>>>> Recliner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:43:25 +0000, Ulf.Kutzner@web.de (ulf_kutzner)
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In Norway, the locals complain that their once-low, stable electricity
>>>>>>>> prices have shot up because the UK and Germany are effectively
>>>>>>>> out-bidding
>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Same with farmed salmon?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't thy farm them everywhere?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not here.
>>>
>>>> See below
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>  There's certainly a lot in Scotland.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I bought from Ireland but still UK is importing from Norway.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But, more surprisingly, I saw lots of Norwegian
>>>>>> fish farms in Chile, producing Atlantic salmon. Inevitably, some
>>>>>> escaped, so you can now get native, freshly caught,
>>>>>> wild Atlantic salmon in Chile!
>>>>>
>>>>> It's different even from wild Norwegian salmon which might have died out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Chile exports young farmed salmon to Norway to be sold after added
>>>>> farming time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Recently, I found Chilean somked salmon in a German supermarket, like
>>>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stremellachs.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Norwegian salmon farming - see:
>>>> https://www.leroyseafood.com/en/
>>>
>>> Heard about it.
>>>
>>> 92 % of farmed salmon are from Norway, the United Kingdom, Canada, Chile,
>>> Australia und New Zealand, and some Norwegian farmed salmon immigrated
>>> from Chile.
>>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lachsfarm
>>>
>
>> ‘They take everything
>
>By the way, I suggest Australia and New Zealand also farm Atlantic salmon?

Yes:
https://goodfishbadfish.com.au/fish/atlantic-salmon/

On 20.04.2024 22:10, Recliner wrote:
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <a7d59208c4a93eb503f9ee1f09d5d123@www.novabbs.org>, at
>>> 15:35:32 on Sat, 20 Apr 2024, ulf_kutzner <Ulf.Kutzner@web.de> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <j0vk1j985nab1qie8ue0dp7gqii9pn3jnd@4ax.com>, at 13:41:26
>>>>> on Sat, 13 Apr 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 22:46:47 +0200, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11.04.2024 20:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <uv3lku$9mdi$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:08:14 on Tue, 9 Apr
>>>>>>>> 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On 09.04.2024 13:06, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In message <uv2p9h$2uq9$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:04:17 on Tue, 9 Apr
>>>>>>>>>> 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 09.04.2024 08:33, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> We were out for a walk near some of the newly installed MML OHLE. I
>>>>>>>>>>>> looked  at it and thought that’s some interesting engineering. My
>>>>>>>>>>>> wife then  remarks  that it was very ugly and spoilt the
>>>>>>>>>>>> countryside. She then wanted to  know  what advantage we might see
>>>>>>>>>>>> from it. Having given it a bit of  thought, as  an ordinary
>>>>>>>>>>>> passenger probably very little. The journey won’t be significantly
>>>>>>>>>>>> faster and I very much doubt that the fares will come  down.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The advantages are that it exists at all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  By why not continue to use the existing motive power? It's greenwash
>>>>>>>>>> that retiring a few diesel locos will make the slightest difference
>>>>>>>>>> to overall carbon footprint or air pollution.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> by using cheaper methods of installation that bring the costs from
>>>>>>>>>>> "too high" to "affordable", and the lower levels of disruption
>>>>>>>>>>> needed for installation and ongoing maintenance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  Talking about maintenance, OHL is a nightmare, not only does it keep
>>>>>>>>>> falling down, but if there's track works required then huge sections
>>>>>>>>>> of  the line are de-energised, and even diesels excluded from the
>>>>>>>>>> area in  question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Diesel engines are a maintenance nightmare. They are expensive and
>>>>>>>>> labour intensive to maintain, and heavyweight, so damaging to the
>>>>>>>>> permanent way. Economic analyses have shown time and again that for a
>>>>>>>>> mainline with a reasonably inensive service, considering whole life
>>>>>>>>> costs, electrification is the cheaper solution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As long as you don't count the costs of passenger delay when the lines
>>>>>>>> fall down, or when there are speed restrictions due to wind.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You could also consider how the class 175 and 180s created massive
>>>>>>> inconvenience to passengers when they broke down repeatedly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Taking badly designed and penny-pinching applications of a technology as
>>>>>>> the defining examples of a technology will never give an accurate
>>>>>>> interpretation of what the technology can actually deliver when done right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is illustrative that pretty well every railway globally that aims to
>>>>>>> provide a level of service that is more than mininally intensive has
>>>>>>> elected for electric service. Basically the only place globally where
>>>>>>> that has failed to happen is North America where perverse incentives
>>>>>>> based on taxation of improved land have skewed the economics due to
>>>>>>> non-railway related reasons have led to large scale non-electric operations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Diesels are also potentially more versatile for diversions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only where sparse electrification persists. Few other countries that
>>>>>>> take a balanced view of railway economics have secondary mainlines that
>>>>>>> are non-electrified.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think this may be the key reason why Brits regard OHLE as being
>>>>>> very unreliable. It's not so much that our wires fall
>>>>>> down more often (which may or may not be true), but that pretty much
>>>>>> all the trains stop running when the wires come
>>>>>> down on the GWML or ECML, as there are no parallel electrified
>>>>>> diversion routes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The WCML is a bit better, and the third rail network in the south
>>>>>> tends to have multiple electrified routes. In other countries, there
>>>>>> are multiple electrified routes, so trains keep running when the
>>>>>> wires come down, even if the service is reduced, and journey times are longer.
>>>>
>>>>> Not true. I've been marooned in the Netherlands in bad weather, when
>>>>> trees (and sundry bits of station roof etc) have been blown onto the
>>>>> wires, and they've thrown in the towel and just cancelled the lot.jp
>>>>
>>>>>> So OHLE failure doesn't make the headlines that they do here.
>>>>
>>>>> I'm impressed that you are reading the domestic press of dozens of
>>>>> foreign countries and can so confidently say what they do and don't
>>>>> report. Here in the UK we only get reports of foreign railway
>>>>> happenings when there's a wreck with at least a dozen people killed.
>>>>
>>>> We are used to OHLE failures after storms, dozens of them seem
>>>> to occur at least per year in Germany* but press coverage focuses
>>>> on stranded passenger trains run out of aircon and ventilation
>>>> and how passengers feel in such conditions after four hours.
>>>>
>>>> Regards, ULF
>>>>
>>>> *) IIRC, Munich couldn't be reached by rail from any side during
>>>> one or two days about a year ago. Operations resumed between
>>>> main and East station by suburban trains using the tunnel.
>>>
>>> Thanks for posting that. I always get the impression Brits looking at
>>> overseas railways have industrial-strength rose-tinted spectacles.
>>
>> No rose tinted spectacles in respect of German railways at the moment. They
>> seem to be suffering chronic delays on many long distance services. I
>> regularly get a tale of woe from a friend who commutes from Brussels to the
>> Black Forest.
>>
>> The Swiss have lost patience with them and won’t let delayed DB trains into
>> Switzerland.
>
> Strictly speaking, they won't let any foreign trains continue on to
> Switzerland's domestic network past the main border city station. Those
> DB/SNCF/ORR/Trenitalia trains traditionally had a dual rule, continuing
> their international journey and also filling a slot in the Swiss domestic
> timetable.
>
> But so many turn up late, or not all, forcing SBB to deploy its stand-by
> trains to maintain the high precision Swiss timetable, that the Swiss have
> lost patience. They've now announced that in future they won't let the
> neighbours' unreliable trains operate domestic services on the reliable,
> punctual Swiss network. Apparently only SNCF punctuality comes close to
> Swiss standards, but I'm not sure if its trains will be exempted from the
> ban.

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:16:12 +0100
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 16:14:41 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 15:21:41 +0000
>>Ulf.Kutzner@web.de (ulf_kutzner) wrote:
>>>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:16:59 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> There isn't close to enough agricultural land in the UK or many other
>>>>>> countries to grow crops for aviation and even if there was , agriculture
>>>>>> is a huge user of energy and a net emitter of CO2 once you account for
>>>>>> fertilizer and diesel used in the crops production. Its a complete non
>>>>>starter.
>>>>>> If you need an example look at the farce that is bioethanol.
>>>>>
>>>>>I wouldn’t argue with that, but anything even half practical is unlikely
>to
>>>
>>>>>be produced by using only electricity, which is what your initial posting
>>>>>suggested.
>>>
>>>> There is no process that is close to being practical for generating
>>>> kerosene other getting it from crude oil. Sofa boy probably wishes it would
>
>>>> be otherwise so can assuage his guilt about his gigantic carbon bootprint
>>>from
>>>> flying every month but physics says otherwise.
>>>
>>>Sun-to-liquid is possible, and there is a demonstrator plant IIRC.
>>>https://www.sun-to-liquid.eu/
>>>
>>>But it's not cheap.
>>
>>A lot of sun for not much liquid. No one is claiming it can't be done,
>
>That's exactly what you did: "Technology isn't the issue, physics is".

I'm not sure what you're not understanding - the physics is the sheer amount
of energy you have to put in to create hydrocarbon fuels from raw materials.
Its completely non feasible for any large scale manufcturing whether its all
done in a chemical plant from CO2 or partly done via growing plants. There
isn't enough electricity for the former or enough land for the latter.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:16:12 +0100
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 16:14:41 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 15:21:41 +0000
>>> Ulf.Kutzner@web.de (ulf_kutzner) wrote:
>>>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:16:59 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> There isn't close to enough agricultural land in the UK or many other
>>>>>>> countries to grow crops for aviation and even if there was , agriculture
>>>>>>> is a huge user of energy and a net emitter of CO2 once you account for
>>>>>>> fertilizer and diesel used in the crops production. Its a complete non
>>>>>> starter.
>>>>>>> If you need an example look at the farce that is bioethanol.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wouldn’t argue with that, but anything even half practical is unlikely
>> to
>>>>
>>>>>> be produced by using only electricity, which is what your initial posting
>>>>>> suggested.
>>>>
>>>>> There is no process that is close to being practical for generating
>>>>> kerosene other getting it from crude oil. Sofa boy probably wishes it would
>>
>>>>> be otherwise so can assuage his guilt about his gigantic carbon bootprint
>>>> from
>>>>> flying every month but physics says otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> Sun-to-liquid is possible, and there is a demonstrator plant IIRC.
>>>> https://www.sun-to-liquid.eu/
>>>>
>>>> But it's not cheap.
>>>
>>> A lot of sun for not much liquid. No one is claiming it can't be done,
>>
>> That's exactly what you did: "Technology isn't the issue, physics is".
>
> I'm not sure what you're not understanding - the physics is the sheer amount
> of energy you have to put in to create hydrocarbon fuels from raw materials.
> Its completely non feasible for any large scale manufcturing whether its all
> done in a chemical plant from CO2 or partly done via growing plants. There
> isn't enough electricity for the former or enough land for the latter.
>

How do you know how much green electricity will be available?

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:28:14 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:16:12 +0100
>> I'm not sure what you're not understanding - the physics is the sheer amount
>> of energy you have to put in to create hydrocarbon fuels from raw materials.
>> Its completely non feasible for any large scale manufcturing whether its all
>> done in a chemical plant from CO2 or partly done via growing plants. There
>> isn't enough electricity for the former or enough land for the latter.
>>
>
>How do you know how much green electricity will be available?

There'll never be a big enough installed base to generate the fuel used
by all the aircraft taking off from the UK even if it didn't have to provide
power for everything else including ever increasing EVs.

Did you miss the post where I showed it would take the output of a large
power station to create the fuel for about 10 777 aircraft alone. Good luck
scaling that up to fuel all of them never mind using windmills and solar
panels.

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:06:09 +0200, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:

>On 20.04.2024 22:10, Recliner wrote:
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <a7d59208c4a93eb503f9ee1f09d5d123@www.novabbs.org>, at
>>>> 15:35:32 on Sat, 20 Apr 2024, ulf_kutzner <Ulf.Kutzner@web.de> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <j0vk1j985nab1qie8ue0dp7gqii9pn3jnd@4ax.com>, at 13:41:26
>>>>>> on Sat, 13 Apr 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 22:46:47 +0200, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11.04.2024 20:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <uv3lku$9mdi$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:08:14 on Tue, 9 Apr
>>>>>>>>> 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> On 09.04.2024 13:06, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <uv2p9h$2uq9$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:04:17 on Tue, 9 Apr
>>>>>>>>>>> 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 09.04.2024 08:33, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We were out for a walk near some of the newly installed MML OHLE. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> looked  at it and thought that’s some interesting engineering. My
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wife then  remarks  that it was very ugly and spoilt the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> countryside. She then wanted to  know  what advantage we might see
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from it. Having given it a bit of  thought, as  an ordinary
>>>>>>>>>>>>> passenger probably very little. The journey won’t be significantly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster and I very much doubt that the fares will come  down.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The advantages are that it exists at all,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  By why not continue to use the existing motive power? It's greenwash
>>>>>>>>>>> that retiring a few diesel locos will make the slightest difference
>>>>>>>>>>> to overall carbon footprint or air pollution.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> by using cheaper methods of installation that bring the costs from
>>>>>>>>>>>> "too high" to "affordable", and the lower levels of disruption
>>>>>>>>>>>> needed for installation and ongoing maintenance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  Talking about maintenance, OHL is a nightmare, not only does it keep
>>>>>>>>>>> falling down, but if there's track works required then huge sections
>>>>>>>>>>> of  the line are de-energised, and even diesels excluded from the
>>>>>>>>>>> area in  question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Diesel engines are a maintenance nightmare. They are expensive and
>>>>>>>>>> labour intensive to maintain, and heavyweight, so damaging to the
>>>>>>>>>> permanent way. Economic analyses have shown time and again that for a
>>>>>>>>>> mainline with a reasonably inensive service, considering whole life
>>>>>>>>>> costs, electrification is the cheaper solution.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As long as you don't count the costs of passenger delay when the lines
>>>>>>>>> fall down, or when there are speed restrictions due to wind.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You could also consider how the class 175 and 180s created massive
>>>>>>>> inconvenience to passengers when they broke down repeatedly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Taking badly designed and penny-pinching applications of a technology as
>>>>>>>> the defining examples of a technology will never give an accurate
>>>>>>>> interpretation of what the technology can actually deliver when done right.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is illustrative that pretty well every railway globally that aims to
>>>>>>>> provide a level of service that is more than mininally intensive has
>>>>>>>> elected for electric service. Basically the only place globally where
>>>>>>>> that has failed to happen is North America where perverse incentives
>>>>>>>> based on taxation of improved land have skewed the economics due to
>>>>>>>> non-railway related reasons have led to large scale non-electric operations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Diesels are also potentially more versatile for diversions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only where sparse electrification persists. Few other countries that
>>>>>>>> take a balanced view of railway economics have secondary mainlines that
>>>>>>>> are non-electrified.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think this may be the key reason why Brits regard OHLE as being
>>>>>>> very unreliable. It's not so much that our wires fall
>>>>>>> down more often (which may or may not be true), but that pretty much
>>>>>>> all the trains stop running when the wires come
>>>>>>> down on the GWML or ECML, as there are no parallel electrified
>>>>>>> diversion routes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The WCML is a bit better, and the third rail network in the south
>>>>>>> tends to have multiple electrified routes. In other countries, there
>>>>>>> are multiple electrified routes, so trains keep running when the
>>>>>>> wires come down, even if the service is reduced, and journey times are longer.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not true. I've been marooned in the Netherlands in bad weather, when
>>>>>> trees (and sundry bits of station roof etc) have been blown onto the
>>>>>> wires, and they've thrown in the towel and just cancelled the lot.jp
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So OHLE failure doesn't make the headlines that they do here.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm impressed that you are reading the domestic press of dozens of
>>>>>> foreign countries and can so confidently say what they do and don't
>>>>>> report. Here in the UK we only get reports of foreign railway
>>>>>> happenings when there's a wreck with at least a dozen people killed.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are used to OHLE failures after storms, dozens of them seem
>>>>> to occur at least per year in Germany* but press coverage focuses
>>>>> on stranded passenger trains run out of aircon and ventilation
>>>>> and how passengers feel in such conditions after four hours.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards, ULF
>>>>>
>>>>> *) IIRC, Munich couldn't be reached by rail from any side during
>>>>> one or two days about a year ago. Operations resumed between
>>>>> main and East station by suburban trains using the tunnel.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for posting that. I always get the impression Brits looking at
>>>> overseas railways have industrial-strength rose-tinted spectacles.
>>>
>>> No rose tinted spectacles in respect of German railways at the moment. They
>>> seem to be suffering chronic delays on many long distance services. I
>>> regularly get a tale of woe from a friend who commutes from Brussels to the
>>> Black Forest.
>>>
>>> The Swiss have lost patience with them and won’t let delayed DB trains into
>>> Switzerland.
>>
>> Strictly speaking, they won't let any foreign trains continue on to
>> Switzerland's domestic network past the main border city station. Those
>> DB/SNCF/ORR/Trenitalia trains traditionally had a dual rule, continuing
>> their international journey and also filling a slot in the Swiss domestic
>> timetable.
>>
>> But so many turn up late, or not all, forcing SBB to deploy its stand-by
>> trains to maintain the high precision Swiss timetable, that the Swiss have
>> lost patience. They've now announced that in future they won't let the
>> neighbours' unreliable trains operate domestic services on the reliable,
>> punctual Swiss network. Apparently only SNCF punctuality comes close to
>> Swiss standards, but I'm not sure if its trains will be exempted from the
>> ban.
>
>There seems to be a bit of inconsisntency with how this "ban" is being
>applied. Zürich is essentially being exempted, as through trains from
>Zürich to München (via Bregenz), to Stuttgart (via Schaffhausen) and
>down the Rhine via Basel all still seem to be running as normal,
>likewise the TGV Lyria services from Zürich to Paris via Basel and
>Dijon. The most significant change is the curtailment of ICE services
>that routinely went to Interlaken and occasional Brig via Basel, that no
>longer run south of Basel, and certain services over the Gotthard to
>Milano seem to be split at Chiasso. It appears that ÖBB is not on the
>naughty list.

Recliner wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:06:09 +0200, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:

>>On 20.04.2024 22:10, Recliner wrote:
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> The Swiss have lost patience with them and won’t let delayed DB trains into
>>>> Switzerland.
>>>
>>> Strictly speaking, they won't let any foreign trains continue on to
>>> Switzerland's domestic network past the main border city station. Those
>>> DB/SNCF/ORR/Trenitalia trains traditionally had a dual rule, continuing
>>> their international journey and also filling a slot in the Swiss domestic
>>> timetable.
>>>
>>> But so many turn up late, or not all, forcing SBB to deploy its stand-by
>>> trains to maintain the high precision Swiss timetable, that the Swiss have
>>> lost patience. They've now announced that in future they won't let the
>>> neighbours' unreliable trains operate domestic services on the reliable,
>>> punctual Swiss network. Apparently only SNCF punctuality comes close to
>>> Swiss standards, but I'm not sure if its trains will be exempted from the
>>> ban.
>>
>>There seems to be a bit of inconsisntency with how this "ban" is being
>>applied. Zürich is essentially being exempted, as through trains from
>>Zürich to München (via Bregenz), to Stuttgart (via Schaffhausen) and
>>down the Rhine via Basel all still seem to be running as normal,
>>likewise the TGV Lyria services from Zürich to Paris via Basel and
>>Dijon. The most significant change is the curtailment of ICE services
>>that routinely went to Interlaken and occasional Brig via Basel, that no
>>longer run south of Basel, and certain services over the Gotthard to
>>Milano seem to be split at Chiasso. It appears that ÖBB is not on the
>>naughty list.

> Perhaps the main problem is when the foreign trains run on single tracks in the more remote areas?

This concerns all countries, as far as we look at the EC Munich <-> Zürich.

On 22.04.2024 15:07, ulf_kutzner wrote:
> Recliner wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:06:09 +0200, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>
>>> On 20.04.2024 22:10, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>> The Swiss have lost patience with them and won’t let delayed DB
>>>>> trains into
>>>>> Switzerland.
>>>>
>>>> Strictly speaking, they won't let any foreign trains continue on to
>>>> Switzerland's domestic network past the main border city station. Those
>>>> DB/SNCF/ORR/Trenitalia trains traditionally had a dual rule, continuing
>>>> their international journey and also filling a slot in the Swiss
>>>> domestic
>>>> timetable.
>>>>
>>>> But so many turn up late, or not all, forcing SBB to deploy its
>>>> stand-by
>>>> trains to maintain the high precision Swiss timetable, that the
>>>> Swiss have
>>>> lost patience. They've now announced that in future they won't let the
>>>> neighbours' unreliable trains operate domestic services on the
>>>> reliable,
>>>> punctual Swiss network. Apparently only SNCF punctuality comes close to
>>>> Swiss standards, but I'm not sure if its trains will be exempted
>>>> from the
>>>> ban.
>>>
>>> There seems to be a bit of inconsisntency with how this "ban" is
>>> being applied. Zürich is essentially being exempted, as through
>>> trains from Zürich to München (via Bregenz), to Stuttgart (via
>>> Schaffhausen) and down the Rhine via Basel all still seem to be
>>> running as normal, likewise the TGV Lyria services from Zürich to
>>> Paris via Basel and Dijon. The most significant change is the
>>> curtailment of ICE services that routinely went to Interlaken and
>>> occasional Brig via Basel, that no longer run south of Basel, and
>>> certain services over the Gotthard to Milano seem to be split at
>>> Chiasso. It appears that ÖBB is not on the naughty list.
>
>> Perhaps the main problem is when the foreign trains run on single
>> tracks in the more remote areas?
>
> This concerns all countries, as far as we look at the EC Munich <-> Zürich.

Those are all still running through, and my understaning is they are not
intended to be withdrawn as through services.

Robin

Bob wrote:

> On 22.04.2024 15:07, ulf_kutzner wrote:
>> Recliner wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:06:09 +0200, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 20.04.2024 22:10, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>> The Swiss have lost patience with them and won’t let delayed DB
>>>>>> trains into
>>>>>> Switzerland.
>>>>>
>>>>> Strictly speaking, they won't let any foreign trains continue on to
>>>>> Switzerland's domestic network past the main border city station. Those
>>>>> DB/SNCF/ORR/Trenitalia trains traditionally had a dual rule, continuing
>>>>> their international journey and also filling a slot in the Swiss
>>>>> domestic
>>>>> timetable.
>>>>>
>>>>> But so many turn up late, or not all, forcing SBB to deploy its
>>>>> stand-by
>>>>> trains to maintain the high precision Swiss timetable, that the
>>>>> Swiss have
>>>>> lost patience. They've now announced that in future they won't let the
>>>>> neighbours' unreliable trains operate domestic services on the
>>>>> reliable,
>>>>> punctual Swiss network. Apparently only SNCF punctuality comes close to
>>>>> Swiss standards, but I'm not sure if its trains will be exempted
>>>>> from the
>>>>> ban.
>>>>
>>>> There seems to be a bit of inconsisntency with how this "ban" is
>>>> being applied. Zürich is essentially being exempted, as through
>>>> trains from Zürich to München (via Bregenz), to Stuttgart (via
>>>> Schaffhausen) and down the Rhine via Basel all still seem to be
>>>> running as normal, likewise the TGV Lyria services from Zürich to
>>>> Paris via Basel and Dijon. The most significant change is the
>>>> curtailment of ICE services that routinely went to Interlaken and
>>>> occasional Brig via Basel, that no longer run south of Basel, and
>>>> certain services over the Gotthard to Milano seem to be split at
>>>> Chiasso. It appears that ÖBB is not on the naughty list.
>>
>>> Perhaps the main problem is when the foreign trains run on single
>>> tracks in the more remote areas?
>>
>> This concerns all countries, as far as we look at the EC Munich <-> Zürich.

> Those are all still running through, and my understaning is they are not
> intended to be withdrawn as through services.

To be cut to München <-> St. Gallen from December:
https://www.dmm.travel/nc/news/wegen-dauerverspaetung-ec-muenchen-zuerich-wird-eingekuerzt

ulf_kutzner <Ulf.Kutzner@web.de> wrote:
> Sam Wilson wrote:
>
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:16:59 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> There isn't close to enough agricultural land in the UK or many other
>>>>> countries to grow crops for aviation and even if there was , agriculture
>>>>> is a huge user of energy and a net emitter of CO2 once you account for
>>>>> fertilizer and diesel used in the crops production. Its a complete non
>>>> starter.
>>>>> If you need an example look at the farce that is bioethanol.
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn’t argue with that, but anything even half practical is unlikely to
>>>> be produced by using only electricity, which is what your initial posting
>>>> suggested.
>>>
>>> There is no process that is close to being practical for generating
>>> kerosene other getting it from crude oil. Sofa boy probably wishes it would
>>> be otherwise so can assuage his guilt about his gigantic carbon bootprint from
>>> flying every month but physics says otherwise.
>
>> By the same token there are no processes for generating it that start with
>> CO2 and H2O, which is what they would have to be for the input energy to be
>> the same as the output.
>
> Hm.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_biofuel#Future_production_routes

Thank you. Someone else corrected me in another part of the thread. It
doesn’t look like it will be a commercial operation for some time yet.

Sam

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

Recliner wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 12:06:19 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>>In message <uv2p9h$2uq9$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:04:17 on Tue, 9 Apr
>>2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>On 09.04.2024 08:33, Tweed wrote:
>>>> We were out for a walk near some of the newly installed MML OHLE. I looked
>>>> at it and thought that’s some interesting engineering. My wife then remarks
>>>> that it was very ugly and spoilt the countryside. She then wanted to know
>>>> what advantage we might see from it. Having given it a bit of thought, as
>>>> an ordinary passenger probably very little. The journey won’t be
>>>> significantly faster and I very much doubt that the fares will come down.
>>>
>>>The advantages are that it exists at all,
>>
>>By why not continue to use the existing motive power? It's greenwash
>>that retiring a few diesel locos will make the slightest difference to
>>overall carbon footprint or air pollution.

> Nobody is prematurely retiring any diesel engines. In fact, it's class 90 electrics that are being prematurely retired
> by DBC.

Any buyers?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_90#DB_Cargo_UK

Regards, ULF

ulf_kutzner <Ulf.Kutzner@web.de> wrote:
> Recliner wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 12:06:19 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>> In message <uv2p9h$2uq9$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:04:17 on Tue, 9 Apr
>>> 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>> On 09.04.2024 08:33, Tweed wrote:
>>>>> We were out for a walk near some of the newly installed MML OHLE. I looked
>>>>> at it and thought that’s some interesting engineering. My wife then remarks
>>>>> that it was very ugly and spoilt the countryside. She then wanted to know
>>>>> what advantage we might see from it. Having given it a bit of thought, as
>>>>> an ordinary passenger probably very little. The journey won’t be
>>>>> significantly faster and I very much doubt that the fares will come down.
>>>>
>>>> The advantages are that it exists at all,
>>>
>>> By why not continue to use the existing motive power? It's greenwash
>>> that retiring a few diesel locos will make the slightest difference to
>>> overall carbon footprint or air pollution.
>
>> Nobody is prematurely retiring any diesel engines. In fact, it's class
>> 90 electrics that are being prematurely retired
>> by DBC.
>
> Any buyers?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_90#DB_Cargo_UK
>

Some, at least, have gone for scrap. Same with the class 91s.

Recliner wrote:

> ulf_kutzner <Ulf.Kutzner@web.de> wrote:
>> Recliner wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 12:06:19 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> In message <uv2p9h$2uq9$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:04:17 on Tue, 9 Apr
>>>> 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>> On 09.04.2024 08:33, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>> We were out for a walk near some of the newly installed MML OHLE. I looked
>>>>>> at it and thought that’s some interesting engineering. My wife then remarks
>>>>>> that it was very ugly and spoilt the countryside. She then wanted to know
>>>>>> what advantage we might see from it. Having given it a bit of thought, as
>>>>>> an ordinary passenger probably very little. The journey won’t be
>>>>>> significantly faster and I very much doubt that the fares will come down.
>>>>>
>>>>> The advantages are that it exists at all,
>>>>
>>>> By why not continue to use the existing motive power? It's greenwash
>>>> that retiring a few diesel locos will make the slightest difference to
>>>> overall carbon footprint or air pollution.
>>
>>> Nobody is prematurely retiring any diesel engines. In fact, it's class
>>> 90 electrics that are being prematurely retired
>>> by DBC.
>>
>> Any buyers?
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_90#DB_Cargo_UK
>>

> Some, at least, have gone for scrap. Same with the class 91s.

91132, ex-91023, involved in two major accidents.
Any more?

Regards, ULF

ulf_kutzner <Ulf.Kutzner@web.de> wrote:
> Recliner wrote:
>
>> ulf_kutzner <Ulf.Kutzner@web.de> wrote:
>>> Recliner wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 12:06:19 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In message <uv2p9h$2uq9$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:04:17 on Tue, 9 Apr
>>>>> 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On 09.04.2024 08:33, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>> We were out for a walk near some of the newly installed MML OHLE. I looked
>>>>>>> at it and thought that’s some interesting engineering. My wife then remarks
>>>>>>> that it was very ugly and spoilt the countryside. She then wanted to know
>>>>>>> what advantage we might see from it. Having given it a bit of thought, as
>>>>>>> an ordinary passenger probably very little. The journey won’t be
>>>>>>> significantly faster and I very much doubt that the fares will come down.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The advantages are that it exists at all,
>>>>>
>>>>> By why not continue to use the existing motive power? It's greenwash
>>>>> that retiring a few diesel locos will make the slightest difference to
>>>>> overall carbon footprint or air pollution.
>>>
>>>> Nobody is prematurely retiring any diesel engines. In fact, it's class
>>>> 90 electrics that are being prematurely retired
>>>> by DBC.
>>>
>>> Any buyers?
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_90#DB_Cargo_UK
>>>
>
>> Some, at least, have gone for scrap. Same with the class 91s.
>
> 91132, ex-91023, involved in two major accidents.

In which it wasn't damaged.

> Any more?

91102, 91103, 91104, 91108, 91112, 91113, 91115, 91122, 91125, 91126,
91128, 91129.

Many more are stored, and likely to be scrapped.

Recliner wrote:

> ulf_kutzner <Ulf.Kutzner@web.de> wrote:
>> Recliner wrote:
>>
>>> ulf_kutzner <Ulf.Kutzner@web.de> wrote:
>>>> Recliner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 12:06:19 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> In message <uv2p9h$2uq9$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:04:17 on Tue, 9 Apr
>>>>>> 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 09.04.2024 08:33, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>>> We were out for a walk near some of the newly installed MML OHLE. I looked
>>>>>>>> at it and thought that’s some interesting engineering. My wife then remarks
>>>>>>>> that it was very ugly and spoilt the countryside. She then wanted to know
>>>>>>>> what advantage we might see from it. Having given it a bit of thought, as
>>>>>>>> an ordinary passenger probably very little. The journey won’t be
>>>>>>>> significantly faster and I very much doubt that the fares will come down.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The advantages are that it exists at all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By why not continue to use the existing motive power? It's greenwash
>>>>>> that retiring a few diesel locos will make the slightest difference to
>>>>>> overall carbon footprint or air pollution.
>>>>
>>>>> Nobody is prematurely retiring any diesel engines. In fact, it's class
>>>>> 90 electrics that are being prematurely retired
>>>>> by DBC.
>>>>
>>>> Any buyers?
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_90#DB_Cargo_UK
>>>>
>>
>>> Some, at least, have gone for scrap. Same with the class 91s.
>>
>> 91132, ex-91023, involved in two major accidents.

> In which it wasn't damaged.

>> Any more?

> 91102, 91103, 91104, 91108, 91112, 91113, 91115, 91122, 91125, 91126,
> 91128, 91129.

> Many more are stored, and likely to be scrapped.

The Balkans wouldn't take them or class 90?

Regards, ULF

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:33:34 +0000, Ulf.Kutzner@web.de (ulf_kutzner) wrote:

>Recliner wrote:
>
>> ulf_kutzner <Ulf.Kutzner@web.de> wrote:
>>> Recliner wrote:
>>>
>>>> ulf_kutzner <Ulf.Kutzner@web.de> wrote:
>>>>> Recliner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 12:06:19 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <uv2p9h$2uq9$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:04:17 on Tue, 9 Apr
>>>>>>> 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On 09.04.2024 08:33, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>>>> We were out for a walk near some of the newly installed MML OHLE. I looked
>>>>>>>>> at it and thought that’s some interesting engineering. My wife then remarks
>>>>>>>>> that it was very ugly and spoilt the countryside. She then wanted to know
>>>>>>>>> what advantage we might see from it. Having given it a bit of thought, as
>>>>>>>>> an ordinary passenger probably very little. The journey won’t be
>>>>>>>>> significantly faster and I very much doubt that the fares will come down.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The advantages are that it exists at all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By why not continue to use the existing motive power? It's greenwash
>>>>>>> that retiring a few diesel locos will make the slightest difference to
>>>>>>> overall carbon footprint or air pollution.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nobody is prematurely retiring any diesel engines. In fact, it's class
>>>>>> 90 electrics that are being prematurely retired
>>>>>> by DBC.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any buyers?
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_90#DB_Cargo_UK
>>>>>
>>>
>>>> Some, at least, have gone for scrap. Same with the class 91s.
>>>
>>> 91132, ex-91023, involved in two major accidents.
>
>> In which it wasn't damaged.
>
>>> Any more?
>
>> 91102, 91103, 91104, 91108, 91112, 91113, 91115, 91122, 91125, 91126,
>> 91128, 91129.
>
>> Many more are stored, and likely to be scrapped.
>
>The Balkans wouldn't take them or class 90?

The 91s probably aren't very attractive to them. They mainly want freight locos, not high speed passenger locos.

On 25/04/2024 14:08, Recliner wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:33:34 +0000, Ulf.Kutzner@web.de (ulf_kutzner) wrote:
>
>> Recliner wrote:
>>
>>> ulf_kutzner <Ulf.Kutzner@web.de> wrote:
>>>> Recliner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ulf_kutzner <Ulf.Kutzner@web.de> wrote:
>>>>>> Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 12:06:19 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <uv2p9h$2uq9$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:04:17 on Tue, 9 Apr
>>>>>>>> 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On 09.04.2024 08:33, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> We were out for a walk near some of the newly installed MML OHLE. I looked
>>>>>>>>>> at it and thought that’s some interesting engineering. My wife then remarks
>>>>>>>>>> that it was very ugly and spoilt the countryside. She then wanted to know
>>>>>>>>>> what advantage we might see from it. Having given it a bit of thought, as
>>>>>>>>>> an ordinary passenger probably very little. The journey won’t be
>>>>>>>>>> significantly faster and I very much doubt that the fares will come down.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The advantages are that it exists at all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By why not continue to use the existing motive power? It's greenwash
>>>>>>>> that retiring a few diesel locos will make the slightest difference to
>>>>>>>> overall carbon footprint or air pollution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nobody is prematurely retiring any diesel engines. In fact, it's class
>>>>>>> 90 electrics that are being prematurely retired
>>>>>>> by DBC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any buyers?
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_90#DB_Cargo_UK
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Some, at least, have gone for scrap. Same with the class 91s.
>>>>
>>>> 91132, ex-91023, involved in two major accidents.
>>
>>> In which it wasn't damaged.
>>
>>>> Any more?
>>
>>> 91102, 91103, 91104, 91108, 91112, 91113, 91115, 91122, 91125, 91126,
>>> 91128, 91129.
>>
>>> Many more are stored, and likely to be scrapped.
>>
>> The Balkans wouldn't take them or class 90?
>
> The 91s probably aren't very attractive to them. They mainly want freight locos, not high speed passenger locos.

90050 caught fire several years ago, and I think that not much more than
an empty shell remains. No others have been scrapped - yet - but all
the DB 90s are in store - some for many years and may never work again;
some have recently been offered for sale. Freightliner is the major
operator of the surviving Class 90s - all are used on freight duties.

Two locos (90001/02) are with Locomotive Services Ltd, mainly for use on
passenger charter services.

In message <cb8TN.60769$lu2.10547@fx15.ams1>, at 11:28:08 on Mon, 15 Apr
2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <j0vk1j985nab1qie8ue0dp7gqii9pn3jnd@4ax.com>, at 13:41:26 on
>> Sat, 13 Apr 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 22:46:47 +0200, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11.04.2024 20:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <uv3lku$9mdi$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:08:14 on Tue, 9 Apr
>>>>> 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On 09.04.2024 13:06, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <uv2p9h$2uq9$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:04:17 on Tue, 9 Apr
>>>>>>> 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On 09.04.2024 08:33, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>>>> We were out for a walk near some of the newly installed MML OHLE. I
>>>>>>>>> looked  at it and thought that’s some interesting engineering. My
>>>>>>>>> wife then  remarks  that it was very ugly and spoilt the
>>>>>>>>> countryside. She then wanted to  know  what advantage we might see
>>>>>>>>> from it. Having given it a bit of  thought, as  an ordinary
>>>>>>>>> passenger probably very little. The journey won’t be significantly
>>>>>>>>> faster and I very much doubt that the fares will come  down.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The advantages are that it exists at all,
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  By why not continue to use the existing motive power? It's greenwash
>>>>>>> that retiring a few diesel locos will make the slightest difference
>>>>>>> to overall carbon footprint or air pollution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> by using cheaper methods of installation that bring the costs from
>>>>>>>> "too high" to "affordable", and the lower levels of disruption
>>>>>>>> needed for installation and ongoing maintenance.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Talking about maintenance, OHL is a nightmare, not only does it keep
>>>>>>> falling down, but if there's track works required then huge sections
>>>>>>> of  the line are de-energised, and even diesels excluded from the
>>>>>>> area in  question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Diesel engines are a maintenance nightmare. They are expensive and
>>>>>> labour intensive to maintain, and heavyweight, so damaging to the
>>>>>> permanent way. Economic analyses have shown time and again that for a
>>>>>> mainline with a reasonably inensive service, considering whole life
>>>>>> costs, electrification is the cheaper solution.
>>>>>
>>>>> As long as you don't count the costs of passenger delay when the lines
>>>>> fall down, or when there are speed restrictions due to wind.
>>>>
>>>> You could also consider how the class 175 and 180s created massive
>>>> inconvenience to passengers when they broke down repeatedly.
>>>>
>>>> Taking badly designed and penny-pinching applications of a technology as
>>>> the defining examples of a technology will never give an accurate
>>>> interpretation of what the technology can actually deliver when done right.
>>>>
>>>> It is illustrative that pretty well every railway globally that aims to
>>>> provide a level of service that is more than mininally intensive has
>>>> elected for electric service. Basically the only place globally where
>>>> that has failed to happen is North America where perverse incentives
>>>> based on taxation of improved land have skewed the economics due to
>>>> non-railway related reasons have led to large scale non-electric
>>>>operations.
>>>>
>>>>> Diesels are also potentially more versatile for diversions.
>>>>
>>>> Only where sparse electrification persists. Few other countries that
>>>> take a balanced view of railway economics have secondary mainlines that
>>>> are non-electrified.
>>>
>>> I think this may be the key reason why Brits regard OHLE as being very
>>> unreliable. It's not so much that our wires fall
>>> down more often (which may or may not be true), but that pretty much
>>> all the trains stop running when the wires come
>>> down on the GWML or ECML, as there are no parallel electrified
>>> diversion routes.
>>>
>>> The WCML is a bit better, and the third rail network in the south tends
>>> to have multiple electrified routes. In other countries, there are
>>> multiple electrified routes, so trains keep running when the wires come
>>> down, even if the service is reduced, and journey times are longer.
>>
>> Not true. I've been marooned in the Netherlands in bad weather, when
>> trees (and sundry bits of station roof etc) have been blown onto the
>> wires, and they've thrown in the towel and just cancelled the lot.jp
>
>That sounds like a storm bad enough that it would have closed the railway
>anyway,

Temporarily yes, while you get someone to remove the bit of roof

>regardless of how the trains were powered. So it's nothing to do
>with OHLE.

But repairing the damage OHL takes much longer than that.

>But I've been on trains on the Continent that were diverted for various
>reasons, and they were able to take secondary routes that were also
>electrified, but probably wouldn't have been here.
>
>>> So OHLE failure doesn't make the headlines that they do here.
>>
>> I'm impressed that you are reading the domestic press of dozens of
>> foreign countries and can so confidently say what they do and don't
>> report. Here in the UK we only get reports of foreign railway happenings
>> when there's a wreck with at least a dozen people killed.
>
>Unlike you, I read the railway press and often travel on Continental
>trains. When did you last do so?

Unlike you I read a lot of general press, which is what matters when
discussing the public's perception of the reliability of one nation's
railway system compared to others.

I've lost count of the number of continental trains I've travelled on,
because to me they are just a way of commuting, so take in everything
from TGVs to the local Metro.

Unless I've got the wrong end of the stick, you just sporadically
vacation on mainly the posher ones.
--
Roland Perry