Hulver's site || Last Christmas, I gave you some stuff

Diaries
Everything
Who's Online?
FAQ / Help

Last Christmas, I gave you some stuff

By Herring (Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 05:19:53 AM EST) stuff, things (all tags)

But the very next day, you gave it away
This year, I'll give you a thing ...

Predictable: 2" of snow and Surrey is fairly fucked up. I know that the council do have gritting lorries and stuff because I've seen them. Never before the icy/snowy weather though - normally at least 24 hours later.

Dropped Small Boy off at the childminders this morning. Why do a 3 point turn when ice + handbrake is more fun? He was impressed.

Apparently there are some delays on trains due to "the wrong kind of companies being in charge".

Work is still boring. I reckon for the last couple of weeks, I've been able to do my actual "work" for the day in under an hour. And that includes explaining obvious things to dumb people.

Working my way through series 4 of Angel at the moment. It's more interesting than the ealier series, but it's still not as good as Forever Knight.

God I'm bored.

< Smells like something | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >

Login

Related Links

- Herring's Diary

Google

Comment Controls

Last Christmas, I gave you some stuff | 27 comments (27 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback

3 point turn. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #1 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 06:46:07 AM EST

Because your handbrake's on the front wheels?

I wouldn't want to do one in reverse.

Eh? by Herring (2.00 / 0) #2 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 06:58:47 AM EST

I was merely observing that a handbrake turn was quicker and more fun than turning in the road properly.

You can do a sort of handbrake turn in reverse. Works better with a car with high geared steering (e.g. Triumph Spitfire like wot I used to have). Just build up a bit of speed backwards, throw the wheel round as far as you can. Maybe dab the footbrake to get the front to let go. If you do it right, you can select first while the front skids round, and continue driving forwards. Takes a bit of practise though and not advisable in a narrow road.

The 2CV, IIRC, did have the handbrake on the front wheels. Do not attempt a handbrake turn in a 2CV.

I'm English, and as such I crave disappointment. - Bill Bailey
[ Parent ]

My car has a handbrake on the front wheels. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #5 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 07:10:34 AM EST

It's not a 2CV, despite being in a garage that does 2CV racing as we speak. I think all the hydraulic Citroëns have a handbrake on the front wheels to avoid winding up the transmission when the vehicle's being loaded, or as the suspension slowly sinks (if it's left for a month or so).

I probably won't attempt a J-Turn when the bloke in the garage finally gets round to seeing it and giving it back to me.

I was staying with a friend in Athens the day before his wedding (I was best man), and we went for a swim (just the other side of Marathon, so obviously we were driving, because, well, it would take at least two hours to get there on foot). He was bowling along the road on the way back, and as I was saying "weren't we going to turn there?" he swung the wheel left and grabbed down with his right hand, performing a beautiful, if reckless handbrake turn. Given they were narrowish roads lined by rocky ground, I wouldn't have done it myself. Not when my parents and fiancée would be so pissed off if I had any obvious bruises or broken bones the next day.

[ Parent ]

Ah. I thought there was a name for it. by Herring (2.00 / 0) #6 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 07:25:59 AM EST

J-turn. Yes. When younger and more reckless, I did one in a carpark between rows of cars (not ice, just wet). The high-geared steering on the Spitfire makes it easier I swear. Still pretty stupid thing to do though.

I'm English, and as such I crave disappointment. - Bill Bailey
[ Parent ]

Bootlegger Turn by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #12 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 08:16:23 AM EST

That's what it's called this side of the pond.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

We also call it a J-turn. by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #17 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 09:40:28 AM EST

PMSbuddy.com -- Saving relationships, one month at a time!
[ Parent ]

I never heard it called that by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #19 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 09:47:41 AM EST

But I grew up and live in Virginia, which is Bootlegger Country.

Well, it (NoVa, anyway) was until about 30 years ago. Heck, I can remember being able to moonshine around here when I was in high school.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

: That's what it's called... by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #23 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 12:11:36 PM EST

here.
Yes, I had a blast.
PMSbuddy.com -- Saving relationships, one month at a time!
[ Parent ]

Oh yes by skippy (2.00 / 0) #25 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 01:41:30 PM EST

It is so much fun when there's a bit of snow on the roads to do handbrake turns. Of course, you need to ensure that there aren't any other vehicles around, and know your car's limits, but it's probably my favourite part of driving in snow...

[ Parent ]

: On ice by Herring (2.00 / 0) #26 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 02:30:09 PM EST

You can do a handbrake turn at 10mph instead of the 40mph you'd need on a dry road. Safer, slower and gives you time to adjust should you need it.

I'm English, and as such I crave disappointment. - Bill Bailey
[ Parent ]

Excellent. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #3 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 06:59:30 AM EST

I'd expand that to read "delays on trains due to "the wrong kind of companies and a very wrong government being in charge".

Hmm by Herring (2.00 / 0) #4 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 07:09:28 AM EST

Since New Labour didn't privatise the trains in the first place, I don't think you can totally blame them. You could blame them for not having the balls to re-nationalise though. The legal framework is even there to do it: private TOC fails to meet standards and the rules say the gov can take over.

Interesting stat I read the other day: even with recent fare rises, the proportion of the rail industry's revenue which comes from fares is around 67% (the rest being subsidy). Under BR, the proportion was 85%. So, privatisation has given us higher fares, much higher subsidy and completely bolloxed any notion of creating an integrated transport policy.

I'm English, and as such I crave disappointment. - Bill Bailey
[ Parent ]

On costs. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #7 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 07:50:12 AM EST

Railtrack estimated the West Coast Mainline upgrade (London - Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow) at £2 billion and completion in 2005 with 145 mph running. It's actually going to cost £13 billion, be completed in 2008 and have 125 mph running.

That's an absolutely dire overrun, and the kind that the rather obscure funding regime of the railways seems to cause. Under BR, London - Manchester trains were very profitable.

All that said, I've a feeling that the 85% figure given there is from during the 6 year hiatus in ordering new trains, and other abandoning of general maintenance.

On the plus side of privatisation, there's been an enormous upsurge in passenger numbers: a doubling on Cross-Country (Intercity routes avoiding London), and a 60% increase on West Coast.

Hopefully it will turn into profitable intercity trains, but I imagine affordable urban railways will normally need some kind of subsidy, under the health and safety regime the railways have to work under.

[ Parent ]

The Senate just threw 3.2 billion at Amtrak by cam (2.00 / 0) #9 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 07:53:55 AM EST

in the US.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

but, by garlic (4.00 / 1) #21 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 11:20:45 AM EST

there are rumblings about forcing them to give up the only profitable section from boston to DC.

[ Parent ]

: also read that amtrak by cam (2.00 / 0) #27 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 06:39:12 PM EST

was started with a one time 40 million injection of capital from the government, and was intended to be self-sufficient there after. Didnt work.
cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

Subsidy by Herring (2.00 / 0) #13 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 08:23:28 AM EST

I remember in the years leading up to the rail privatisation wondering why government spending on roads was "investment" and spending on railways was "subsidy".

I think that an awful lot of people (including me) resent public money being given to private companies so they can run a crap service and still make a profit. OK, sure there are issues of line capacity around London, but what's the excuse for cutting the number of carriages?

And I still don't understand how it's cheaper to go from one city to another by unsubsidised aeroplane than by subsidised train.

I'm English, and as such I crave disappointment. - Bill Bailey
[ Parent ]

Planes Are by jump the ladder (2.00 / 0) #15 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 08:37:57 AM EST

Far more economical than they were even 20 years ago. Plus RyanAir doesn't have to pay for hundred miles of tracks to be maintained.

Anyway, if you take into account that the cheap headline figure fares on airlines are for seats booked well in advance and you can get similarly cheap tickets on the railways if you book ahead. Also you have to take into account the costs of getting to the airport.

[ Parent ]

: Also, of course, by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #16 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 09:22:48 AM EST

if train companies advertised their ticket prices as just the cost of running the train and put the track and station usage charges as surcharges, they would be able to offer a far greater number of extremely low headline prices.
That said, with fully allocated ticketing and full control over the booking facilities, it is an awful lot easier for the airlines to offer tickets on unpopular (but not necessarily unprofitable) flights right up to the day before departure. The railways face extreme resistance to yield management on ticket pricing, and also a litany of complaints with regard to confusing pricing if there are any loopholes left which allow cheaper tickets, or if any of those loopholes are closed.
For finding cheap train tickets advertised by headline price, like the airlines, go to Transport Direct, then click through to Find a train, then select Cost as your parameter. Alternatively, click that first link to set the cookie, then the second to go to the page. And no, that site will only link you to somewhere to buy the ticket, it won't actually sell it to you. Stupid quasi-privatisation.

[ Parent ]

that pisses me off too, in the US. by garlic (4.00 / 1) #22 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 11:32:20 AM EST

tickets for amtrak from city to city cost the same as airplane tickets from city to city. The only time savings possible on amtrak is lower security and early arrival requirements, but that's counteracted by even more delays than o'hare airport.

[ Parent ]

I blame NuLabia by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #8 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 07:53:29 AM EST

For not buying Railtrack when it went bankrupt as a neat way of renationalising.

I blame NuLabia for not giving the Office of the Rail Regulator teeth to level punitive fines to rail companies that don't deliver, or confiscate contracts for not making the trains run well.

I blame NuLabia for constantly throwing money at a complex problem without any sort of strategy for success.

I blame NuLabia.

Vote Breaker in 2012

Where were those stats from BTW?

Stats? by Herring (2.00 / 0) #10 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 08:05:14 AM EST

Er .... hmmm .... Private Eye.

The issue with the rail stuff seems to be like a lot of goverment deals with private corps (PFI, NHS IT etc.). The idea of transferring risk to the private sector is reasonable, but in practise as soon as the companies realise that they may have fucked up (i.e. they aren't going to make megabucks), they just turn around and demand more public money. And the government gives it to them.

Someone is getting incredibly rich with taxpayer's money. And it isn't me.

I'm English, and as such I crave disappointment. - Bill Bailey
[ Parent ]

I gave up reading the Eye by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #11 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 08:14:09 AM EST

Several years ago - too depressing to read how many snouts in the trough.

I agree, the "risk" factor is grossly over stated.

Government contracts are essentially gilt edged; companies taking them on are not exposing themselves to much risk and the profit margins should reflect that.

Vote Breaker in 2012

The Eye by Herring (2.00 / 0) #14 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 08:33:29 AM EST

I get it occaisionally. You never know quite whether the stories are mostly true and nobody else is bothering to report them (or covering up) or the stories aren't true.

I'm inclined towards the former. And, yes, it is depressing but more people should be aware of this stuff. Especially the PFI things. Interestingly it seems that as the gov gives health trusts more independence, the PFI deals seem to be the first things that the trust ditches.

I'm English, and as such I crave disappointment. - Bill Bailey
[ Parent ]

Mostly true by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #18 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 09:43:23 AM EST

Or they'd never get an issue out, what with being in court all the time. And politicians do indeed take them to court from time to time...

I just think that Murdoch has a Devils pact with #10; they won't report the low level grifting that goes on in exchange for favours. But people should be rightly more attentive to what's going on.

Meh by Dr Thrustgood (2.00 / 0) #20 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 10:00:11 AM EST

The one thing I'll give The Eye is breaking Cash for Honours months - as usual - before the other rags.

God I'd love to see Blair walking out in shackles continues dreaming...

: Hmmm by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #24 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 12:35:08 PM EST

Maybe this is why Reid is going on about not locking non-violent criminals up? He's preparing for half the cabinet to be convicted but receive non custodial sentences.

[ Parent ]

Last Christmas, I gave you some stuff | 27 comments (27 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback