AHJAY Show full post »
PJ Knight
According to my daily newspaper the Chinese reckon they can build HS2 in 5 years! One of my daughters works for a railway consultancy company, her current project is the electrification of the Transpennine route from Hull to Liverpool, even now Network Rail cannot tell them their preferred option, it seems to change each week. Its no wonder this country cannot build major infrastructure on time & within budget.
Quote 0 0
Julian
PJ Knight wrote:
According to my daily newspaper the Chinese reckon they can build HS2 in 5 years! One of my daughters works for a railway consultancy company, her current project is the electrification of the Transpennine route from Hull to Liverpool, even now Network Rail cannot tell them their preferred option, it seems to change each week. Its no wonder this country cannot build major infrastructure on time & within budget.


Given the consideration the Chinese give to their population's circumstances and the effects that developments have upon them, it's amazing that they think it would take as long as 5 years.  A few tanks, starvation of a few million, a few more lies about the means to their achievements - just what the UK would welcome.

Julian

PS.  Yes, that was meant to be sarcastic, but not about what would be acceptable to the UK population.
Quote 0 0
AHJAY
The most annoying result of the Fluorescent transition bulbs was their high early failure rate... making any form of saving at any part of the manufacture-to-consumer cycle totally irrelevant. Additionally, the materials used in manufacture had less potential for recycling than Incandescent, adding another question mark.

BTW if you have Fluorescent tubes in use consider replacing them every couple of years - they actually lose power efficiency and more than 30% of their illumination ability over time, but because its such a sublte change you never notice it. That is why offices always have a "replacement cycle" for them.

regards, Ahjay
Quote 1 0
Julian
So true.
AHJAY wrote:
The most annoying result of the Fluorescent transition bulbs was their high early failure rate... making any form of saving at any part of the manufacture-to-consumer cycle totally irrelevant. Additionally, the materials used in manufacture had less potential for recycling than Incandescent, adding another question mark.  When we moved to a new place in Salisbury, all the lights were Fluorescent and they also had the starters in the light socket, with the bulb separate. When that went wrong, the complete pendant had to be replaced, unlike the normal twist out and twist back in with the new one.  All done in the best possible claim for efficiency.

BTW if you have Fluorescent tubes in use consider replacing them every couple of years - they actually lose power efficiency and more than 30% of their illumination ability over time, but because its such a sublte change you never notice it. That is why offices always have a "replacement cycle" for them.   That 30% is very significant, as it increases the flicker, too.  Less light and more flicker doesn't make for the best office environment.  Back in the early eighties, three years of that in an office, with no windows cost us a significant and permanent, deterioration in reading sight loss.

J

regards, Ahjay
Quote 0 0
Peter Rust Rusty Pete
l bought 10 x 60w incandescent bulbs 5 years ago, they are yet to fail.Yet, at the same time, I bought 10 40w equivalents at a much higher price, trying to be green. The last one failed last week.
They may use less energy, but overall they will be more expensive due to replacement costs.
As for fluos,the flicker has caused me issues with new tubes.
More than one way to skin a cat ðŸ˜‰
Quote 1 0
Bunkerbarge
One of my pet peeves when working was the drop off in fluorescent lamp brightness.  We would historically of course only change the tubes when they failed but when I did a galley inspection and noticed how dull things were getting there would always be the same two issues.  A) The stewarding team had been cleaning the plexiglass covers so vigorously that they were getting opaque and blocking light and B) The tubes had been in place and powered up continuously for a number of years.  I would ask the Chief Electrical Engineer for a cost to replace all tubes and fitting covers.  This was invariably in the region of 50 to 100K dollars.  We would then spread the cost over X months and start up a program of replacement, usually over around six months.  The galleys became hugely noticeably brighter and everyone working there would heap praise on the engineering team for being so wonderful. 

We never had a problem getting food for social events!  My job was then getting the office to pay for the project rather than it coming out of our own pot.
Quote 2 0
Jaz Avalley JazAvalley

Manufacturing at home is the only way to ensure wealth, and indeed stability, look at the turn around with USA, the EU has consistently stopped us making things, instead giving us brain power items such as the arts, and people can just walk at whim. But manufacture, provide jobs, and pay the staff who then can buy. Look what happened to Hornby they exported manufacture to China, then Bachmann did the sam, oh and bought the company who made Hornby, and Hornby almost hit a wall with serious production issues, allowing Bachmann to the market share. Doh! Keep it close to home where you can control it. We have a population of people pushed onto the dole, because low paid jobs at more or less less than benefits. How many people can be bothered to work just for the pride of having a job when they can slob it at home for the same money, and maybe do some illegal under the table pay on top. Machines are likely to take much of our work, hell they are even solving problems, so not just replacing grunt work. And why would a government bother much a bout those people, especially if they ever change voting to people only who have a job. 

The thing that always annoys me is banks, banks have a total win win situation. IF the economy goes down, people can't afford to pay mortgages, then the banks acquire their homes, and they always collect well before THEIR investment is in danger of failing. Getting older people to sell their main asset, i.e. their home for an income, but the bank get the property at the end. The government allows builders to build homes on land they know is liable to flood, WTF!  Hopefully with the Chinese crisis, some of our Companies will think it might be better to manufacturer at home, and have reliability.

Jaz Avalley

Model Railway Discussion Group

https://www.facebook.com/groups/495282280644117/
Quote 0 0
AHJAY

Honestly I see zero "on or off-shore" in relation to the woes of the big H or the  relationship between H and B in relation to their initial troubles...

Hornby could never have held manufature on-shore - their skill-set and machinery was all well past use-by date by then, and attempting to rebuild it would have broken things far faster.

A lot of self-inflicted wounds are quite clear though.

Actually - later - both B and H had problems, but rather than B taking market share when H stumbled they stood back and vegetated - a real shame after the masterstroke of the "surprise attack" of the exceptional Midland Pullman model.

Banks on the other hand... good call.. Come the revolution, can I hold the gun please :-)

regards, Ahjay

Quote 0 0
newbryford


Ask Dapol,
their stuff is stamped ''Made in Wales''
.


Hi Peter,
I've just been looking at recycling (see - I'm trying my best to save the planet) a Dapol Class 150 chassis - horrible body moulding, but the power bogie isn't too bad if you can accept the almost pizza-cutter wheels.
It was made sometime around the late 1980s/early90s and has "Made In China" moulded into the chassis.
And the same applies to Mainline, Airfix/GMR of the same generation.
So it's not a recent thing with regard to model railways. 

Cheers,
Mick
Quote 0 0