Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
True, because the HSTs were horrendously expensive to run.
However removing the HSTs at Cross Country (and elsewhere) is a specifically targeted exercise, and not just some random selection because of the industry‘s financial woes.
If that were true, are you seriously saying that the contents of the former HST diagrams can all be comfortably accommodated in the 4/5 coach Voyagers that will replace them? Presumably those Voyagers are being freed up by short-forming double sets, are you also saying that the contents of those double sets will comfortably fit in a single?
True, because the HSTs were horrendously expensive to run.
However removing the HSTs at Cross Country (and elsewhere) is a specifically targeted exercise, and not just some random selection because of the industry‘s financial woes.
So will they be aware that the vehicle behind the car facing them is a tractor towing a trailer, and that therefore they should be the one to reverse on this occasion? Can they see how many vehicles are behind both them and the vehicle opposite?
How will they cope with the passing spaces themselves, they're not exactly roomy? When you go down many country lanes in a car fitted with parking sensors, you hear the sensors going off a lot.
Let's face it, much of the testing so far has taken place in the US. A country with incredibly wide roads.
So given that the HSTs worked their final service yesterday, when will these extra Voyagers be arriving? They ought to have been in service today really, rather than leaving a gap of however long it will be. It's not like there weren't any available, two of them were sat idle at Central Rivers for some time before Grand Central snapped them up.
What's replacing the GWR HSTs? Will that be in service in good time, or are they still talking about cutting the timetable to match resources?
Driverless cars, like certain IT projects, always seem to be 95% there. They may work on the sunny boulevards of California, but are never going to work on a wet dark night in Manchester or in the country lanes of Devon and Cornwall. And, yes, they use the same road space as cars with drivers.
This. A lot of money is made by people who are working on solving that last 5%, but in most cases it's a grift as you can easily see the flaws just as much as they can.
Only when a Government is brave enough to say that from 20xx all manually driven cars are banned, roads are designated a status akin to a motorway so they aren't clogged up with bikes, scooters, pedestrians crossing, illegally/inconsiderately parked vehicles etc, can fully autonomous cars get around - all communicating with each other with a reliable, low-latency, system that has been developed to be virtually bomb-proof.
And given we're now backtracking on phasing out the sale of ICE vehicles, I'd love to know who would be brave enough to come up with such a proposal, and decide what year would be chosen as such a huge change.
The backlash from people who enjoy driving would be tremendous for one.
At best we're likely to see specific roads being designated as a place where a car could drive fully hands-free, and GPS or whatever would tell the vehicle that (and likewise, if there was an incident, it could be disabled by the police/highways agency or whatever) and that will mean still needing a qualified driver at the wheel. Otherwise, what happens when your new car gets stuck somewhere and you can't actually drive? You lock the car up and walk to work? Does it fix itself and drive home?
And this highly expensive car you've got but doesn't work is how cheap to fix with so many sensors and computers onboard to try and do what you could do, with technology aiding you rather than driving you?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The technology is 100% there. The plan is they'll satnav their way round & avoid traffic as they'll know where it all is. And, of course, you will pay a cheaper fare if you share with someone heading the same way for at least some of the ride.
Because they are so much safer the insurance will be cheaper and that is what will force the switch for most people. Effectively manual driven cars will become too dear for most people
No SatNav, not even with crowdsourced data like Waze or others, will know the exact specifics of a delay. It might say there's an accident, but where? What lane? Can it be passed? What about other vehicles ahead that aren't passing it? Are the police on site directing vehicles? How do they tell your driverless car where to go? Rely on SatNav to redirect? What if other roads are blocked, or you're guided off-road to get around something, or made to turn back on the same road?
Insurance is going up partially because of repair costs, so I suspect a fully level 5 autonomous vehicle is going to be VERY costly to insure, especially as it ages.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
One thing about driverless automatic cars that intrigues me.
In the future, when they are common and I still drive 'manually'; suppose I arrive at a T junction or roundabout where I should give way. If an automated car is approaching, what would happen if I didn't give way, but just pulled out in front if it? Presumably, it would be programmed to brake to avoid an accident so I would save time. At the moment, if I tried this with another (human) driver the result could well be either a collision (because of slower reaction than an automated car) or swearing, gesturing, aggressive road rage (none of which, presumably, the cars computer will do).
People are already 'playing' with automated cars because they know how they're programmed. And there is also the age-old argument about how you program a vehicle to make a decision on what to do when a crash is deemed inevitable. It's one reason the car industry is working so hard to try and indemnify itself from responsibility in the event of an accident. Think Tesla, where it has been noted that the car reverts to manual control just before an accident, so Tesla can claim driver error, not computer error.
Of course that can't work if there is no driver at the wheel and you sold the car as 100% self-driving.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
They'll behave as per the rules of the road. What were you expecting them to do??
They'll be aware of their surroundings, obviously, and remember where there were spaces to pass. It's, basically exactly the same technology as cars use now, just they'll be driving too. I don't know why you're so excited about it.
Will the vehicle take into account that passing place where someone in a van has dumped a load of mattresses and a fridge? Does the on-board computer learn that for future reference and share it with all the other cars, that are all seamlessly connected in real-time over 5G, 6G or whatever - even in a cutting in the countryside - with live 360-degree video feeds inside and out?
How would the automated car deal with this over a normal person in such a situation? A normal driver will seek another place, or maybe edge closer to the side of the road avoiding any ditches. The other driver will assist. What about sheep walking along the road (a situation I've encountered and had to use my car carefully to encourage them to move).
I expect two automated cars would just sit there. Which moves first? Are the cars going to be connected to each other and negotiate a solution? Obviously a solution already considered and programmed in, because contrary to popular believe, AI isn't that intelligent. Indeed, all the trials seek to gain more data about specific roads but still can't cope with changes well.
This. A lot of money is made by people who are working on solving that last 5%, but in most cases it's a grift as you can easily see the flaws just as much as they can.
Only when a Government is brave enough to say that from 20xx all manually driven cars are banned, roads are designated a status akin to a motorway so they aren't clogged up with bikes, scooters, pedestrians crossing, illegally/inconsiderately parked vehicles etc, can fully autonomous cars get around - all communicating with each other with a reliable, low-latency, system that has been developed to be virtually bomb-proof.
And given we're now backtracking on phasing out the sale of ICE vehicles, I'd love to know who would be brave enough to come up with such a proposal, and decide what year would be chosen as such a huge change.
The backlash from people who enjoy driving would be tremendous for one.
At best we're likely to see specific roads being designated as a place where a car could drive fully hands-free, and GPS or whatever would tell the vehicle that (and likewise, if there was an incident, it could be disabled by the police/highways agency or whatever) and that will mean still needing a qualified driver at the wheel. Otherwise, what happens when your new car gets stuck somewhere and you can't actually drive? You lock the car up and walk to work? Does it fix itself and drive home?
And this highly expensive car you've got but doesn't work is how cheap to fix with so many sensors and computers onboard to try and do what you could do, with technology aiding you rather than driving you?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
No SatNav, not even with crowdsourced data like Waze or others, will know the exact specifics of a delay. It might say there's an accident, but where? What lane? Can it be passed? What about other vehicles ahead that aren't passing it? Are the police on site directing vehicles? How do they tell your driverless car where to go? Rely on SatNav to redirect? What if other roads are blocked, or you're guided off-road to get around something, or made to turn back on the same road?
Insurance is going up partially because of repair costs, so I suspect a fully level 5 autonomous vehicle is going to be VERY costly to insure, especially as it ages.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
People are already 'playing' with automated cars because they know how they're programmed. And there is also the age-old argument about how you program a vehicle to make a decision on what to do when a crash is deemed inevitable. It's one reason the car industry is working so hard to try and indemnify itself from responsibility in the event of an accident. Think Tesla, where it has been noted that the car reverts to manual control just before an accident, so Tesla can claim driver error, not computer error.
Of course that can't work if there is no driver at the wheel and you sold the car as 100% self-driving.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Will the vehicle take into account that passing place where someone in a van has dumped a load of mattresses and a fridge? Does the on-board computer learn that for future reference and share it with all the other cars, that are all seamlessly connected in real-time over 5G, 6G or whatever - even in a cutting in the countryside - with live 360-degree video feeds inside and out?
How would the automated car deal with this over a normal person in such a situation? A normal driver will seek another place, or maybe edge closer to the side of the road avoiding any ditches. The other driver will assist. What about sheep walking along the road (a situation I've encountered and had to use my car carefully to encourage them to move).
I expect two automated cars would just sit there. Which moves first? Are the cars going to be connected to each other and negotiate a solution? Obviously a solution already considered and programmed in, because contrary to popular believe, AI isn't that intelligent. Indeed, all the trials seek to gain more data about specific roads but still can't cope with changes well.
You're way over thinking it...meanwhile, back in the real world. Insurance will be cheaper on them & that will be one of the things that people change for. There's zero evidence to say it will be cheaper and lots to say it will be cheaper. I doubt they'll be a ban on people driving cars themselves (why would there?), so people who like driving can carry on. They know the size of vehicle they meet and the nearest closest passing space (that they'll fit in) that technology is the easy bit and already works. The road and lane closures are already dealt with for people who drive, and I guess this is why you're so confused on the issues, you're oblivious to what people already are doing. This information is freely available alreadyand it's passed on. This is where the railways let themselves down, when there's an issue they don't pass on any information they abandon people in random places. The roads pass on the information. Motorways and A roads these days have information displayed on screens, including a long way ahead so you can make plans. Autonomous cars will also talk to each other, this happens to a limited 3xtent already anyway. Satnav sees what vehicles are doing and if they're all stopped or moving slowly it knows there's some kind of issue. Plus it learns, so if it's like that at 8.07 every Monday, then it's fine for example. Satnavs now give you different journey times and routes if you say you want to start in 2 hours or 8 hours as it knows what's likely to be a problem then already. Most of what you said is already happening with at the moment!
It will be interesting to know how much it will cost to hire one of these cars - a distance of say, Ashford to Brighton. Will there still be a distance - as there is for a taxi today, but presumably further, where it becomes uneconomical for an individual to hire one.
Well I just can't wait to see the Mexican standoff when one of these either can't or won't back-up a quarter of a mile to the nearest farm gate.
In cities meanwhile these things will do nothing to lessen congestion, they take up the same space as a car does. The future of our inner cities is to squeeze as much traffic out as possible, in order to allow pedestrians to walk freely. This brings better quality of live.
You're way over thinking it...meanwhile, back in the real world. Insurance will be cheaper on them & that will be one of the things that people change for. There's zero evidence to say it will be cheaper and lots to say it will be cheaper. I doubt they'll be a ban on people driving cars themselves (why would there?), so people who like driving can carry on. They know the size of vehicle they meet and the nearest closest passing space (that they'll fit in) that technology is the easy bit and already works. The road and lane closures are already dealt with for people who drive, and I guess this is why you're so confused on the issues, you're oblivious to what people already are doing. This information is freely available alreadyand it's passed on. This is where the railways let themselves down, when there's an issue they don't pass on any information they abandon people in random places. The roads pass on the information. Motorways and A roads these days have information displayed on screens, including a long way ahead so you can make plans. Autonomous cars will also talk to each other, this happens to a limited 3xtent already anyway. Satnav sees what vehicles are doing and if they're all stopped or moving slowly it knows there's some kind of issue. Plus it learns, so if it's like that at 8.07 every Monday, then it's fine for example. Satnavs now give you different journey times and routes if you say you want to start in 2 hours or 8 hours as it knows what's likely to be a problem then already. Most of what you said is already happening with at the moment!
Wow, you really are naive. I've worked in tech since the 90s and people have been saying we're going to have driverless cars/taxis for over 20 years. Indeed, there are threads on this very forum about it!
You really over estimate the level of coverage we have for 5G (and currently no network in the UK has a standalone, public, 5G network that offers the necessary low-latency speed) and our ability to cover every single road and country track, and that's before you consider how they'd manage on a private estate or going off-road. AI isn't that intelligent and 'learns' only based on the information already given to it.
SatNavs are quite advanced, but that's it. QUITE advanced. They can monitor the movement of mobile phones or other navigation users to predict traffic and look at average road speeds, but they can't determine what's happening right now everywhere. They can give an average. They can show a road is slow due to something, but is it a total blockage, debris on the road (how does an automated car deal with that? Does it get out to move the obstruction?) or something else? I've worked with Navteq and TeleAtlas on collecting road data for mapping (not sure what these companies are called now as that's no longer my field) and Vodafone on the traffic data side. Google now uses similar tech, and Waze something else (also an issue; most apps don't share data with each other as they're in competition). Again, the data is only good for when it was collected. So, no, the car won't know every single passing place or how wide it is.
You are really looking at this fantasy and believing it's going to become real. It won't. We will absolutely get more automation to assist a driver, but getting rid of the driver altogether is going to at best be for very specific locations and roads.
But, there's absolutely stacks of money on offer to those who claim to know different. Many people are willing to invest money in the hope it becomes reality and they become rich.
This. A lot of money is made by people who are working on solving that last 5%, but in most cases it's a grift as you can easily see the flaws just as much as they can.
Only when a Government is brave enough to say that from 20xx all manually driven cars are banned, roads are designated a status akin to a motorway so they aren't clogged up with bikes, scooters, pedestrians crossing, illegally/inconsiderately parked vehicles etc, can fully autonomous cars get around - all communicating with each other with a reliable, low-latency, system that has been developed to be virtually bomb-proof.
And given we're now backtracking on phasing out the sale of ICE vehicles, I'd love to know who would be brave enough to come up with such a proposal, and decide what year would be chosen as such a huge change.
The backlash from people who enjoy driving would be tremendous for one.
At best we're likely to see specific roads being designated as a place where a car could drive fully hands-free, and GPS or whatever would tell the vehicle that (and likewise, if there was an incident, it could be disabled by the police/highways agency or whatever) and that will mean still needing a qualified driver at the wheel. Otherwise, what happens when your new car gets stuck somewhere and you can't actually drive? You lock the car up and walk to work? Does it fix itself and drive home?
And this highly expensive car you've got but doesn't work is how cheap to fix with so many sensors and computers onboard to try and do what you could do, with technology aiding you rather than driving you?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
No SatNav, not even with crowdsourced data like Waze or others, will know the exact specifics of a delay. It might say there's an accident, but where? What lane? Can it be passed? What about other vehicles ahead that aren't passing it? Are the police on site directing vehicles? How do they tell your driverless car where to go? Rely on SatNav to redirect? What if other roads are blocked, or you're guided off-road to get around something, or made to turn back on the same road?
Insurance is going up partially because of repair costs, so I suspect a fully level 5 autonomous vehicle is going to be VERY costly to insure, especially as it ages.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
People are already 'playing' with automated cars because they know how they're programmed. And there is also the age-old argument about how you program a vehicle to make a decision on what to do when a crash is deemed inevitable. It's one reason the car industry is working so hard to try and indemnify itself from responsibility in the event of an accident. Think Tesla, where it has been noted that the car reverts to manual control just before an accident, so Tesla can claim driver error, not computer error.
Of course that can't work if there is no driver at the wheel and you sold the car as 100% self-driving.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Will the vehicle take into account that passing place where someone in a van has dumped a load of mattresses and a fridge? Does the on-board computer learn that for future reference and share it with all the other cars, that are all seamlessly connected in real-time over 5G, 6G or whatever - even in a cutting in the countryside - with live 360-degree video feeds inside and out?
How would the automated car deal with this over a normal person in such a situation? A normal driver will seek another place, or maybe edge closer to the side of the road avoiding any ditches. The other driver will assist. What about sheep walking along the road (a situation I've encountered and had to use my car carefully to encourage them to move).
I expect two automated cars would just sit there. Which moves first? Are the cars going to be connected to each other and negotiate a solution? Obviously a solution already considered and programmed in, because contrary to popular believe, AI isn't that intelligent. Indeed, all the trials seek to gain more data about specific roads but still can't cope with changes well.
A very good post. I for one am confident that the distopian future desired by some where human beings do nothing and machines and robots work, think and do everything else for us, is a long long way off, and thank God!
One thing about driverless automatic cars that intrigues me.
In the future, when they are common and I still drive 'manually'; suppose I arrive at a T junction or roundabout where I should give way. If an automated car is approaching, what would happen if I didn't give way, but just pulled out in front if it? Presumably, it would be programmed to brake to avoid an accident so I would save time. At the moment, if I tried this with another (human) driver the result could well be either a collision (because of slower reaction than an automated car) or swearing, gesturing, aggressive road rage (none of which, presumably, the cars computer will do).
You're way over thinking it...meanwhile, back in the real world. Insurance will be cheaper on them & that will be one of the things that people change for. There's zero evidence to say it will be cheaper and lots to say it will be cheaper. I doubt they'll be a ban on people driving cars themselves (why would there?), so people who like driving can carry on. They know the size of vehicle they meet and the nearest closest passing space (that they'll fit in) that technology is the easy bit and already works. The road and lane closures are already dealt with for people who drive, and I guess this is why you're so confused on the issues, you're oblivious to what people already are doing. This information is freely available alreadyand it's passed on.
Regarding road and lane closures - this is absolute balderdash. Over the past two years or so a statutory company has been installing fibre optic communication cables in Reading and the immediately surrounding areas. 'Fibre to the premises' - every building is affected.
Being a statutory company means that it can dig holes in the road for the purposes of its business wherever and whenever it likes. Notices are published of course that in certain roads at some times between March and July works are planned - but not anything usefully more specific. The company simply rocked up, coned off the area and started digging as happened several times near my house without so much as a leaflet through the door the night before.
At the same time, Reading Borough Council has been installing cycle lanes on some roads but it tries to work between the rush hours and make most of the road space available to traffic at times of peak demand. The fibre company just leaves the coned-off area on the road even when no work was being done. This led to the odd experience of the cleared away cycle path work being immediately followed by half the road width being still closed. The traffic queues spread rapidly over a wide area.
Frequently my Sat-Nav did not 'know' about these blockages until long after they had occurred and as a result suggested an alternative route straight into another queue. This happened to me several times - it demonstrates a significant failure in the information gathering process. Another example - a few days ago the Sat-Nav gave a warning of road works on the M3/M27 with a 50mph average speed limit over a stretch of several miles. Looking at the road it was clear that the works had finished weeks ago...
I do not and would not trust either the accuracy or the completeness of such data. To suggest that automated systems could reliably function in an environment with so many variables is, frankly, delusional.
This is where the railways let themselves down, when there's an issue they don't pass on any information they abandon people in random places. The roads pass on the information. Motorways and A roads these days have information displayed on screens, including a long way ahead so you can make plans.
Autonomous cars will also talk to each other, this happens to a limited 3xtent already anyway. Satnav sees what vehicles are doing and if they're all stopped or moving slowly it knows there's some kind of issue. Plus it learns, so if it's like that at 8.07 every Monday, then it's fine for example. Satnavs now give you different journey times and routes if you say you want to start in 2 hours or 8 hours as it knows what's likely to be a problem then already. Most of what you said is already happening with at the moment!
Sometimes these system are helpful, but all too frequently they are not.
Added in edit:
This has got us a long way from the thread's subject - but in my mind the topics are linked, even if tenuously. Capacity in both modes is limited - one can make both railways and roads very, very long but one cannot make them wide enough to cope with the absolute maximum numbers of people if they each want a seat.
I do not know what the solutions are that are acceptable to most people. I will simply point out that there are only three fundamental ways of limiting the size of peak flows for any given capacity limit: queueing, rationing and pricing. You pays your money and you makes your choice...!
This seems to be the standard response from proponents of ideas that are untried and tested in the real world when they are faced with question they can’t answer. Unfortunately the real world is full of “what ifs”. No doubt some of the objections are spurious and overthought (I am pretty certain that autonomous cars can be made to work on Motorways pretty easily) but others that involve interaction with flesh and blood humans never get answered. What happens in busy urban areas when pedestrians realise that the cars ARE ALWAYS going to stop when they step out in front of them? Gridlock…
All the points raised on here (and many, many more) have been thought of by the experts. Nobody on here has raised anything that's not been considered and thought about.
These people know what they are doing.
All the points raised on here (and many, many more) have been thought of by the experts. Nobody on here has raised anything that's not been considered and thought about.
These people know what they are doing.
As did the people who built the Titanic, designed 1960s shopping centres / housing estates and came up with this wonderful new light RAAC for buildings, no doubt.
As did the people who built the Titanic, designed 1960s shopping centres / housing estates and came up with this wonderful new light RAAC for buildings, no doubt.
Wow, you really are naive. I've worked in tech since the 90s and people have been saying we're going to have driverless cars/taxis for over 20 years. Indeed, there are threads on this very forum about it!
You really over estimate the level of coverage we have for 5G (and currently no network in the UK has a standalone, public, 5G network that offers the necessary low-latency speed) and our ability to cover every single road and country track, and that's before you consider how they'd manage on a private estate or going off-road. AI isn't that intelligent and 'learns' only based on the information already given to it.
SatNavs are quite advanced, but that's it. QUITE advanced. They can monitor the movement of mobile phones or other navigation users to predict traffic and look at average road speeds, but they can't determine what's happening right now everywhere. They can give an average. They can show a road is slow due to something, but is it a total blockage, debris on the road (how does an automated car deal with that? Does it get out to move the obstruction?) or something else? I've worked with Navteq and TeleAtlas on collecting road data for mapping (not sure what these companies are called now as that's no longer my field) and Vodafone on the traffic data side. Google now uses similar tech, and Waze something else (also an issue; most apps don't share data with each other as they're in competition). Again, the data is only good for when it was collected. So, no, the car won't know every single passing place or how wide it is.
You are really looking at this fantasy and believing it's going to become real. It won't. We will absolutely get more automation to assist a driver, but getting rid of the driver altogether is going to at best be for very specific locations and roads.
But, there's absolutely stacks of money on offer to those who claim to know different. Many people are willing to invest money in the hope it becomes reality and they become rich.
Have to agree with this. Just looking at ATO on LU, it’s taken well over 50 years, has only just about got to the point where half the network is auto, and still with a list of issues as long as the proverbial arm.
If we can’t get this to work on guided and segregated rail infrastructure, where it’s easier to design in graceful fail-safe modes of failure, then I just can’t see the technology being perfected for road vehicles.
There also remain all the expected issues relating to cost, whether people will accept it, and of course putting too much power in the hands of certain institutions or companies.
*You're often forced to stand or in a 3+2 seating arrangement with no table, and close proximity to strangers.
*Modern cars do most things for you. Once in a lane at the set speed it's virtually impossible to have an accident, it moves you back in lane if you veer off. It maintains speed/distance from car in front without any driver intervention.
*Have you travelled in an IET?
*Some journeys maybe faster...but some are slower.
*Other than central London, parking isn't really a problem. *Most cities and large towns have EV hubs to park & charge whilst you're doing whatever you do. Hotels have overnight charging bays.
*as said above, it's virtually impossible to crash a modern car. Evenmoreso driverless cars.
*Motorways & Satnav between them keep traffic flowing pretty well. And you're not abandoned miles from home!
If you already own a car, even taking petrol prices and parking into consideration, for any long distance journeys, the car almost always works out a cheaper option in my experience.
Myself and my partner visited York on Saturday, I looked at going by train, it would have been £93 with a 2 together railcard from Lichfield Trent Valley to York so we drove, it cost me around £45 in fuel and around £7 for park and ride, so lets call it £55 in total, that makes the train £37 more expensive.
Oh, and I didn't have to stand for 2 hours both ways in my car.
If you already own a car, even taking petrol prices and parking into consideration, for any long distance journeys, the car almost always works out a cheaper option in my experience.
And of course having plunged a considerable amount of money into the purchase of said car, you want to get as much use out of it as possible. This is why we can't bodge our infrastructure, it needs to cover everything that the generic resident needs.
One thing about driverless automatic cars that intrigues me.
In the future, when they are common and I still drive 'manually'; suppose I arrive at a T junction or roundabout where I should give way. If an automated car is approaching, what would happen if I didn't give way, but just pulled out in front if it?
We could solve this by segregating driverless traffic into it's own dedicated route.
Oh if we're doing that we could optimise the route so the cars are on some metal guidance system to reduce friction, increase speed dramatically and reduce fuel consumption
Oh if we're doing that we could also increase the size of the vehicles so they're able to carry hundreds of people at once instead of four
That way we could also add stuff like refreshments and toilets for longer routes
Oh and we could put a safety guy in the front to make sure nothing goes wrong on the route like a fallen tree
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
