St P.I..L.L Impressions.

In message <sqmql39vsrcfmums2bvefti2qpls18eitd@>, at 15:29:58 on
Mon, 10 Dec 2007, James Farrar <james.s.farrar@> remarked:
>>And the iPhone will also pick up wifi, iirc.
>
>As do some (many?) far more reasonably-priced phones...

That's good to know. I've not encountered a dual-standard one yet (they
were all over a trade show I went to in 2004, the main motivation being
improved in-building coverage I was told; but that was pretty much the
last I heard of them), although I do have a wifi-only phone.
--
Roland Perry

In article <2trql3hqb78stl8s98dtoted11dd2i1ijj@>,
James Farrar <james.s.farrar@> wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:53:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >In message <sqmql39vsrcfmums2bvefti2qpls18eitd@>, at 15:29:58 on
> >Mon, 10 Dec 2007, James Farrar <james.s.farrar@> remarked:
> >>>And the iPhone will also pick up wifi, iirc.
> >>
> >>As do some (many?) far more reasonably-priced phones...
> >
> >That's good to know. I've not encountered a dual-standard one yet (they
> >were all over a trade show I went to in 2004, the main motivation being
> >improved in-building coverage I was told; but that was pretty much the
> >last I heard of them), although I do have a wifi-only phone.
>
> My Orange SPV E650 (made by HTC and released by them under their own
> brand as well, I believe) does GPRS and WiFi.

Interesting. The only person I've ever seen with an SPV (except for
Captain Scarlet and his colleagues, of course) said, unprompted, that it
was the worst phone they'd ever had and to stay well away from it. I
don't know what they expected from a phone so it might suit some people
very well indeed.

Sam

Sam Wilson wrote:
> In article <2trql3hqb78stl8s98dtoted11dd2i1ijj@>,
> James Farrar <james.s.farrar@> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:53:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <sqmql39vsrcfmums2bvefti2qpls18eitd@>, at 15:29:58 on
>>>Mon, 10 Dec 2007, James Farrar <james.s.farrar@> remarked:
>>>>>And the iPhone will also pick up wifi, iirc.
>>>>As do some (many?) far more reasonably-priced phones...
>>>That's good to know. I've not encountered a dual-standard one yet (they
>>>were all over a trade show I went to in 2004, the main motivation being
>>>improved in-building coverage I was told; but that was pretty much the
>>>last I heard of them), although I do have a wifi-only phone.
>>My Orange SPV E650 (made by HTC and released by them under their own
>>brand as well, I believe) does GPRS and WiFi.
>
> Interesting. The only person I've ever seen with an SPV (except for
> Captain Scarlet and his colleagues, of course) said, unprompted, that it
> was the worst phone they'd ever had and to stay well away from it. I
> don't know what they expected from a phone so it might suit some people
> very well indeed.

Well what do you expect when you have to walk backwards while talking on
it? I'll get me coat...

Robin

In message <2trql3hqb78stl8s98dtoted11dd2i1ijj@>, at 16:57:12 on
Mon, 10 Dec 2007, James Farrar <james.s.farrar@> remarked:
>My Orange SPV E650 (made by HTC and released by them under their own
>brand as well, I believe) does GPRS and WiFi.

How good is it at logging into subscription hotspots (rather than free
ones). Of course, one might expect it to log into "Orange" hotspots
automatically, but I'm not sure they have their own network of them.

The other question relates to using it for VoIP, rather than GSM, calls.
Do Orange have their own service or do you have to buy into something
extra. Can you configure it for existing SIP systems, and services like
Skype?

The original GSM/Wifi phones I saw were designed around revenue
protection for the mobile phone operator, so even if you found a wifi
hotspot all it would do is put a VoIP call through to a server run by
the phone company, and charge at the normal mobile rate. But it was all
supposed to be seamless from the point of view of the user. The benefit
was the wider coverage (we may be used to 99% coverage in the UK, but
it's far more patchy in the USA).

With more and more wifi on trains, as well as increasingly GSM-hostile
trains, perhaps there's a gap in the market for some sort of GSM/Wifi
roaming phone.
--
Roland Perry

"Mizter T" <mizter.t@> wrote in message
news:55e4d08a-f1d2-48e6-844b-5da365729994@e10g2000prf..com...

> I suspect there will be many other commuters today who will similarly
> find the location of the new station's to be an unpleasant surprise
> when it comes to interchange with the deep-level tube lines.

I heard such comments as I visited the station today, such as one guy saying
on his mobile that it will be an extra 10-minutes to get to the station.

The comments and the mood on the platform were similar. Personally speaking,
I can't say that I blame them.

A few questions:

a) What is that tunnel to that veers left, just north of the platform?

b) I noticed that one train had Southern markings on it. Why

c) I saw a 317 pull into the station. Where would that train have come from
and why would it be operating on Thameslink? I thought that they would
exclusively run 319s.

On 10 Dec, 09:41, Mizter T <mizte...@> wrote:
>
> I suspect there will be many other commuters today who will similarly
> find the location of the new station's to be an unpleasant surprise
> when it comes to interchange with the deep-level tube lines.

Excuse my apostrophitis in the above sentence, it would appear to have
suffered from some rapid and careless redrafting.

"Mr Thant" <maha.thray.sithu.u.thant@> wrote in message
news:a04f1a4e-b99e-44e9-97fd-39bfc2ed61d6@l1g2000hsa..com...
> On 10 Dec, 20:54, <hounsl...m> wrote:
>> > Moorgate, but don't know the details of how and why.
>
> The 317s (or at least some of them)...

All of them...

> ...were built for the pre-Thameslink
> electric service to Moorgate, and FCC have borrowed some back to use
> some in this role to free up 319s. 317s don't have third rail pickups,
> so they can't run south over the main route.

The 317s were very advanced trains for their time. They were the first
trains to have retention bogs, for the underground section to Moorgate [1].
The need for this was accentuated by the tight clearances, which
necessitated slab track and results in the distinctive roaring noise on the
curves north of KXTL. I remember seeing a photo of the gauge clearance tests
they did with a few inches of polystyrene on the outside of two trains which
they positioned at the pinch points on the curves - it was very tight.

[1] I believe some genius actually removed these later.

>> I thought that FCC would run be running 317s out of the other terminal at
>> Moorgate, via Finsbury Park and Welwyn Garden City.
>
> I don't think anything but 313s has ever gone that way. And again,
> 317s don't have third rail, so couldn't anyway.

You are correct about the 313s - they are the only stock cleared for this
line, because the loading gauge is tube-size - or only slightly bigger.
That's why the section from Finsbury Park (or is the changeover at Drayton
Park? - I can never remember) had to retain the third rail for use by the
dual voltage 313s. This was quite a clever patchwork job done when the GN
suburban lines were electrified in the mid-1970s, linking the old Northern
City with the GN main at Finsbury Park.

Regards

Jonathan

On Dec 10, 10:15 pm, "Jonathan Morton"
<jonat...@jonathanmortonbutignorethisbit.co.uk> wrote:

> The 317s were very advanced trains for their time. They were the first
> trains to have retention bogs, for the underground section to Moorgate [1].
> [1] I believe some genius actually removed these later.

That's the first time I've heard that - is it definitely true?

> You are correct about the 313s - they are the only stock cleared for this
> line, because the loading gauge is tube-size - or only slightly bigger.

Quite a lot bigger than tube (or Tube) gauge, though you're right that
not all standard EMUs would fit through the tunnel. 313s are at least
as big as LU sub-surface stock though...

"Rupert Candy" <urpthebarem> wrote in message
news:6c65a997-a400-435d-a1e1-a0513b9a9395@y5g2000hsf..com...
> On Dec 10, 10:15 pm, "Jonathan Morton"
> <jonat...@jonathanmortonbutignorethisbit.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The 317s were very advanced trains for their time. They were the first
>> trains to have retention bogs, for the underground section to Moorgate
>> [1].
>> [1] I believe some genius actually removed these later.
>
> That's the first time I've heard that - is it definitely true?

The first bit is certainly true. They were also the first units designed for
DOO - and stood in the sidings for months in consequence until the dispute
was sorted out.

>> You are correct about the 313s - they are the only stock cleared for this
>> line, because the loading gauge is tube-size - or only slightly bigger.
>
> Quite a lot bigger than tube (or Tube) gauge, though you're right that
> not all standard EMUs would fit through the tunnel. 313s are at least
> as big as LU sub-surface stock though...

Yes, I guess they are. On reflection, I don't think I've ever been on one.
But they are significantly smaller than the 317s (which were Mk3-derived
IIRC). Several of them wiped their pantographs off on the tunnel entrance in
the early months of the GN electrification.

Regards

Jonathan

"Paul Scott" <notvalidpmscott@> wrote in message
news:A8adnWWS8aKKIsDanZ2dnUVZ8qydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Jonathan Morton" <jonathan@jonathanmortonbutignorethisbit.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:R9idnecmzrP3J8DanZ2dnUVZ8s-qnZ2d@bt.com...
>> "Mr Thant" <maha.thray.sithu.u.thant@> wrote in message
>> news:a04f1a4e-b99e-44e9-97fd-39bfc2ed61d6@l1g2000hsa..com...
>
>>> I don't think anything but 313s has ever gone that way. And again,
>>> 317s don't have third rail, so couldn't anyway.
>>
>> You are correct about the 313s - they are the only stock cleared for this
>> line, because the loading gauge is tube-size - or only slightly bigger.
>
> I would have thought the tunnels were of 'normal' main line gauge, just
> without sufficient clearance for OHLE. That was always given as one of
> the reasons the Moorgate crash was so disastrous, as the train was not
> constrained by the tunnel walls, and cars were able to ride over one
> another.

I believe you are right about that last point. [1]

I should have said the gauge was "less than main line" - it is (as you say)
appreciably bigger than the various LU gauges.

[1] Moorgate <shudder> remains one of those "you remember where you were"
moments.

Regards

Jonathan