Thames Cycle Path Closed

Ambrose Nankivell said:

Tony Raven said:

By the way does anyone find it odd that the BBC with their 5-25kW RF
transmitters should be having a go at 100mW WiFi transmitters? Grass
Houses and Thrones?

Not at all *odd*. Hypocritical, yes.

If I had an hour to spare, I'd be interested to see if the inverse
square law is mentioned. I noticed they were comparing terminals to
base stations on the extended trailer on the Jeremy Vine show on the
radio just now.
--
A

Or 1200W microwaves....

Pete

Phil Cook said:

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Phil Cook
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Tom Crispin wrote:

> Due to a fire on the Cutty Sark, the Thames Cycle Path through
> Greenwich, and the Greenwich Foot Tunnel, have been closed.
The whole of Greenwich was closed, roads and all. Mainly due to the
belief there were gas cylinders involved.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6675381.stm

"Greenwich town centre in south-east London has been closed to traffic
and the Docklands Light Railway shut.

The ship was currently undergoing a £25m renovation and was closed to
visitors.

It's going to need more than that now - souvenir ashes, anyone?

Fortunately Cutty Sark was composite iron-wood construction and the
masts and spars were elsewhere at the time as was 50 percent of the
planking. It's still going to be a Big Job though :-(

The tragedy here is that one of the amazing features of the Cutty Sark
was that it was almost completely original. Whatever they now do with
it, that aspect has now gone.

It's just lucky that so much of it was elsewhere during the renovations.

Pete

Don Whybrow said:

Clive George said:

"Trevor A Panther" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's an intersting aside -- really. At what point does "continual
restoration" change an original artifact like the Cutty Sark or SS
Great Britain in to a replica!

Quoted message said:

Oh - forgot to mention, have you seen the Viking ships in Oslo? Dug out
of the ground in late victorian times or so. Back then they knew they
were at the peak of human knowledge, so knew best - so "restored" the
boats to an extent. Fortunately not too badly, and it does provide a
better idea of what the boats were like than looking at a few mouldy
timbers, but it is a bit obvious where the new wood is sometimes.

I think that if one is making a restoration it should be made blatantly
clear which parts are original and which parts have been added as part
of the restoration. By all means add bits of wood & metal, but
paint/treat them so that they are obvious.

Surprisingly enough I have seen the viking ships. They are well housed
in a really nice museum that is well worth a visit.

It is clear which parts have been replaced/restored. Sufficient to
give an idea of what the entire ship looked like, but not so much as
to swamp the originals.

The real travesty is the motorised 'lookalike' that pootles around
Oslo harbour - completely the wrong shape and doesn't even sail.

One of these days I'd like to sail a replica longship.

...d

On 21 May 2007 03:32:04 -0700 someone who may be
"[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

the remaining post inductrial wasteland of north woolwich

I didn't realise there was any left. I thought it had all been
turned into the Thatcher Memorial.

When my father and I visited Cutty Sark in the mid 1970s we walked
through the tunnel to the other side, we met one other person in the
tunnel. When we did the same thing a decade later the tunnel was
full of people.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Mon, 21 May 2007 18:06:13 +0100 someone who may be "Niall
Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

In the case of a vehicle which has been used chances are there were many
parts of the vehicle that were not the same as when it was built.

That is the case with preserved trains. Even when they were working
things would be replaced, for example boilers. The more sensible
railways standardised boilers to make this easier.

A lot of preserved trains have bits for other trains, sometimes
quite large bits. However, much the same thing would have been done
in their working life.

Things become more interesting if they are to run on the big
railway. A number of bits of safety equipment are now necessary and
have to be fitted somewhere, does this mean they are no longer
"authentic"?

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Pete said:

The tragedy here is that one of the amazing features of the Cutty Sark
was that it was almost completely original.

Why does this matter? If old knackered bits are replaced with newly made
bits it doesn't change the design or history of the ship and that's what
makes it what it is. Otherwise it's just a pile of old wood and metal.

David Hansen said:

On 21 May 2007 03:32:04 -0700 someone who may be
"[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

the remaining post inductrial wasteland of north woolwich

I didn't realise there was any left. I thought it had all been
turned into the Thatcher Memorial.

When my father and I visited Cutty Sark in the mid 1970s we walked
through the tunnel to the other side, we met one other person in the
tunnel. When we did the same thing a decade later the tunnel was
full of people.

The tunnel was built to get workers from the south of the Thames to
the docks on the north, that's when cycling in the tunnel was banned.
The ban remains in place today and the lift attendants threaten to
make you carry your bikes up the stairs if they catch you cycling.

The Woolwich Foot Tunnel is now as empty as the Greenwich Foot Tunnel
once was.

In news:[email hidden],
TheMgt <[email hidden]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

Quoted message said:

Pete said:

The tragedy here is that one of the amazing features of the Cutty
Sark was that it was almost completely original.

Why does this matter? If old knackered bits are replaced with newly
made bits it doesn't change the design or history of the ship and
that's what makes it what it is. Otherwise it's just a pile of old
wood and metal.

ISTR that there's a wooden temple in Kyoto which has burned to the ground at
least three times, and been rebuilt to the original spec. To the locals,
it's still the same building, which apparently heathen Westerners find
rather odd :-)

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Maffeo Barberini (1568-1644) was made entirely of salmon.

In article said:

Pete said:

The tragedy here is that one of the amazing features of the Cutty Sark
was that it was almost completely original.

Why does this matter? If old knackered bits are replaced with newly made
bits it doesn't change the design or history of the ship and that's what
makes it what it is. Otherwise it's just a pile of old wood and metal.

A history that ends "and it is now preserved here" is different from one
that ends "and it was replaced with a replica after it was destroyed by
fire". We're now part-way between those two endings.

After all, the design and working history of the ship wouldn't have
been changed if it had been scrapped in 1954 instead of dry-docked.
Are you saying that wouldn't matter either?

Dave Larrington wrote on 22/05/2007 08:34 +0100:

Quoted message said:

ISTR that there's a wooden temple in Kyoto which has burned to the ground at
least three times, and been rebuilt to the original spec. To the locals,
it's still the same building, which apparently heathen Westerners find
rather odd :-)

Many Japanese temples and shrines, including the famous one at Ise, are
regularly rebuilt. Every twenty years at enormous expense in the
Ise-jingu case. Doesn't stop the tourist though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Shrine_of_Ise

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

"David Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 21 May 2007 18:06:13 +0100 someone who may be "Niall
Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

In the case of a vehicle which has been used chances are there were many
parts of the vehicle that were not the same as when it was built.

That is the case with preserved trains. Even when they were working
things would be replaced, for example boilers. The more sensible
railways standardised boilers to make this easier.

A lot of preserved trains have bits for other trains, sometimes
quite large bits. However, much the same thing would have been done
in their working life.

Things become more interesting if they are to run on the big
railway. A number of bits of safety equipment are now necessary and
have to be fitted somewhere, does this mean they are no longer
"authentic"?

Wot like ERTMS paranoia?

Niall

Tom Orr said:

"Trevor A Panther" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
<snipped>

Quoted message said:

That's an intersting aside -- really. At what point does "continual
restoration" change an original artifact like the Cutty Sark or SS Great
Britain in to a replica!

Quoted message said:

I remember my father turning down our suggestion of a visit to the Wallace
Monument in Stirling to see Wallace's sword: "five new blades and three new
handles" was his explanation.

If the original material is what matters, there's not much point in
keeping up with any of your old friends :-)

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Ambrose Nankivell said:

Tony Raven said:

By the way does anyone find it odd that the BBC with their 5-25kW RF
transmitters should be having a go at 100mW WiFi transmitters? Grass
Houses and Thrones?

Not at all *odd*. Hypocritical, yes.

Quoted message said:

If I had an hour to spare, I'd be interested to see if the inverse
square law is mentioned. I noticed they were comparing terminals to
base stations on the extended trailer on the Jeremy Vine show on the
radio just now.

The inverse square law is sadly neglected by alarmists. I know several
people who are scared of mobile phone cell masts, but aren't in the
slightest worried about spending hours with their own cell phone
clamped to their lug. And I know someone who was worried enough about
wifi radiation that he put the base station aerial very high up on the
wall to keep it at a distance from him while he sits with his laptop
on his knee :-)

Incidentally, my wifi PDA lets me control its power by software, and
I've found that reducing it from 100mW to 4mW makes hardly any
noticeable difference. I suspect that where there's a lot of local
interfering transmissions (there's another half dozen local wifis
within range) it can be more than a square law where effective range
is concerned.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Chris Malcolm said:

If the original material is what matters, there's not much point in
keeping up with any of your old friends :-)

Fortunately teeth and the bone around the inner ear do not remodel after
they have formed... if these happen to be the parts of your old friend you
are attached to 🙂

Roos

Chris Malcolm said:

Ambrose Nankivell said:

Tony Raven said:

By the way does anyone find it odd that the BBC with their 5-25kW RF
transmitters should be having a go at 100mW WiFi transmitters? Grass
Houses and Thrones?

Not at all *odd*. Hypocritical, yes.

Quoted message said:

If I had an hour to spare, I'd be interested to see if the inverse
square law is mentioned. I noticed they were comparing terminals to
base stations on the extended trailer on the Jeremy Vine show on the
radio just now.

The inverse square law is sadly neglected by alarmists. I know several
people who are scared of mobile phone cell masts, but aren't in the
slightest worried about spending hours with their own cell phone
clamped to their lug.

Indeed. If you make a single one minute call on a 1w mobile right
next to your head, that's the same energy dose as you'd get from a GSM
basestation 400m away.

These naysayers also fail to appreciate that they put cellular masts
where the traffic comes from i.e. their neighbours.

Chris
--
Chris Eilbeck

On Tue, 22 May 2007 23:06:11 +0100 someone who may be "Niall
Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Things become more interesting if they are to run on the big
railway. A number of bits of safety equipment are now necessary and
have to be fitted somewhere, does this mean they are no longer
"authentic"?

Wot like ERTMS paranoia?

Preserved locomotives now have to be fitted with high intensity
headlights. At the moment this can be a portable battery operated
unit, though even this might be considered to spoil photographs.

They are now being fitted with train air brakes, which are not
authentic for most preserved steam locomotives and some preserved
diesels. Usually space is found on the tender of steam locomotives,
so as not to spoil the appearance (and sound) by fitting a
traditional air pump.

For some years they have been fitted with AWS and now TPWS. The
former is again not something some preserved steam locomotives had
fitted in their "working" lives, while the latter was obviously
never fitted.

Those locomotives working on particular lines have to be fitted with
RETB equipment. Those only making occasional forays just have
portable units, but I understand that those working on the lines
regularly have been fitted with RETB equipment permanently. Although
an electronic box of tricks with glowing displays is not authentic I
think this is very sensible.

When the ETCS part of ERTMS is introduced preserved locomotives will
at some point have to be fitted with it if they are to work over
lines where it is installed. That strikes me as very sensible.
Preserved locomotives are not toys by large machines capable of
causing death and injury, just like unpreserved ones. Some years ago
I saw a full size version of one of these
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.southernsteamtrains.com/duchessphotos/Duchess-AH-web-01.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.southernsteamtrains.com/duchess.htm&h=294&w=700&sz=61&hl=en&start=7&um=1&tbnid=Uy_uKtRPGo1wxM:&tbnh=59&tbnw=140&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dprincess%2Bpacific%2Blocomotive%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN
at Tamworth Low Level. She was having the water in her tender
replenished and, after some passenger trains had passed, set off
along the main line towards Stafford. Having something like that
crashing into the rear of another train, even at ISTR the speed
limit for such preserved locomotives of 75mph, would be just as
serious as if it was an unpreserved locomotive.

While all these things are I think necessary they can also be seen
as not being authentic if one takes a purist opinion.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Personally I think a modern version of the Cutty Sark should be built
and used to carry fairtrade tea from India & Sri Lanka. On arrival the
tea should be transported by rickshaw to the places in the UK where
people gather to drink tea. That would be some progress in the fights
against inequality & global warming.

Simon

On Wed, 23 May 2007 20:11:25 GMT, Simon Geller <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Personally I think a modern version of the Cutty Sark should be built
and used to carry fairtrade tea from India & Sri Lanka. On arrival the
tea should be transported by rickshaw to the places in the UK where
people gather to drink tea.

Places such as the departure lounge at Heathrow?

Tim