Ordsall Chord

[Boysteve]

Think big - you might get big - tinker round the edges and you will NEVER get the quantum leap.

I do always despair when people use this phrase. As conceived in the scientific world a Quantum Leap is the smallest possible change allowed on a sub-atomic level. To use it to mean something bid is just incorrect although dictionaries have since included it as a way of conveying what the scientific ignorant masses are trying to get across when they use such a term. Put simply a quantum leap in platform lengthening (as an example) would mean that a platform was lengthened by one sub-atomic particle only, and you can make other comparisons to other railway matters. Lesson over!

 

[AE]

I do always despair when people use this phrase. As conceived in the scientific world a Quantum Leap is the smallest possible change allowed on a sub-atomic level. To use it to mean something bid is just incorrect although dictionaries have since included it as a way of conveying what the scientific ignorant masses are trying to get across when they use such a term. Put simply a quantum leap in platform lengthening (as an example) would mean that a platform was lengthened by one sub-atomic particle only, and you can make other comparisons to other railway matters. Lesson over!

Lots of words have multiple meanings. For example, the word "work" has a very specific meaning in physics but non physicists use it in many other ways. I don't think that position is actually quantized in quantum physics anyway.

In the case of phrases that include the word quantum, the size aspect has got lost over time, and all that remains is the other aspect of a quantum leap which is that there are no valid intermediary states. So people use the word quantum to signify an abrupt change. Platforms, for example are not lengthened by 1m a day for 50 days, they are lengthened by 50m at once.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I do always despair when people use this phrase. As conceived in the scientific world a Quantum Leap is the smallest possible change allowed on a sub-atomic level. Lesson over!

I hear what you are saying - but - there are so many other examples and the Americans are particularly bad. I could care less -when they mean they could not care less. I confess that I use the phrase "a quantum leap" and trust me I have studies Physics, Maths, engineering, Chemistry, Materials Science and have two bachelors degrees, an MSc and also hold DIC. I understand quantum mechanics totally so I use the phrase to mean "Jump to the whole next level" . Hope this helps.

Lots of words have multiple meanings. For example, the word "work" has a very specific meaning in physics but non physicists use it in many other ways. I don't think that position is actually quantized in quantum physics anyway.

In the case of phrases that include the word quantum, the size aspect has got lost over time, and all that remains is the other aspect of a quantum leap which is that there are no valid intermediary states. So people use the word quantum to signify an abrupt change. Platforms, for example are not lengthened by 1m a day for 50 days, they are lengthened by 50m at once.

Energy, work and power - all misunderstood to the none scientist/engineer.

 

[anorack 1]

If the worst came to the worst and Whitby wins his appeal. Could the Attorney General overturn the decision?

 

[snowball]

If the worst came to the worst and Whitby wins his appeal. Could the Attorney General overturn the decision?

No. Only an act of parliament could do it (unless the others side could appeal to the Supreme Court???)

 

[po8crg]

If the worst came to the worst and Whitby wins his appeal. Could the Attorney General overturn the decision?

Nope. NR could appeal to the Supreme Court.

But the appeal would be that the process that made the decision was improper, not that the decision was substantively wrong - it's a judicial review.

That means that a new inspector could be appointed (and possibly a new public inquiry) and they could still make the same decision.

 

[oddiesjack]

I understand quantum mechanics totally so I use the phrase to mean "Jump to the whole next level" . Hope this helps.

I am sure you wrote this purely to get someone to respond with:

A quote that is sometimes attributed to Richard Feynman is "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics".

So, I'll bite

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I am sure you wrote this purely to get someone to respond with:

A quote that is sometimes attributed to Richard Feynman is "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics".

So, I'll bite

Well lets say you have a Hydrogen atom. It only has 1 electron - so the principal quantum number must be 1 - OK so far?

Actually that is too easy - let me take Samarium -element number 62 - makes it more interesting don't you think? We will fill by the Aufbau principle and note the Pauli exclusion principle that no two electrons can have the same set of quantum numbers because they cant occupy the same space. So Samarium must be 1s2 ,2s2, 2p6, 3s2, 3p6, 4s2, 3d10, 4p6 (that takes us to Krypton by the way) then it would go 5s2, 4d10, 5p6 (up to Xenon) 6s2 4f6 (Lanthanum would have been interesting by the way having 5d1 but lets not go there)

OK so what does this mean. Well the principle quantum number is 6 - and the azimuthal quantum numbers (I am sorry I know you could use orbital angular momentum quantum number, but my first professor taught me azimuthal) must be 0 up to 5 - So s =0, p=1, d=2, f=3 (g and h are possible in theory )

I just realized I should have chosen Europium as that would be f7 - and that would give us what is called "Maximum spin multiplicity" - the electrons in these orbitals would all align parallel. I liken it to a train (there you are mods back on topic of trains) - person one fills an empty seat but person 2 would not sit next to that person but fill another empty seat. This is energetically favorable.

Now this post has got too long so I will continue with magnetic and spin quantum numbers in a later post. Notice I use orbital - the region of maximum probability of finding an electron - not the old Bohr model of orbit.

By the way if you integrate over all areas of space then the probability of finding the electron must be 1 !! The electron has to be somewhere!

Now of course you might say to yourself - well this guy could have just googled all this and cut and pasted or similar - but you are welcome to continue this in private email

Graham A. Howarth, BSc (Hons), MSc(distinction); DIC, C.Chem, FRSC, FTSC, C.Sci, MICorr, MIM - now that is just me being a total showoff.

 

[edwin_m]

now that is just me being a total showoff.

In that case you'd better go back and change the second use of "principle" to "principal"...

 

[GRALISTAIR]

In that case you'd better go back and change the second use of "principle" to "principal"...

touché

 

[Philip Phlopp]

touché

And I have to ask, is DIC a Diploma in Computerisation ?

 

[lejog]

Diploma of Imperial College

Lejog BSc ARCS PhD DIC

 

[snowball]

Over the last hundred years, dozens of the cleverest people in the world have got Nobel prizes for developing quantum mechanics.

I suspect that not one of them would be stupid enough or arrogant enough to claim to understand quantum mechanics totally.

So perhaps their Nobel prizes should be returned and re-issued to our friend here, who does understand the subject totally.

This year's Reith lectures are currently being delivered by Stephen Hawking, who would certainly not claim to understand quantum mechanics totally.

Clearly the wrong person is giving the lectures.

 

[SodTheDrummer]

Well lets say you have a Hydrogen atom. It only has 1 electron - so the principal quantum number must be 1 - OK so far?

Actually that is too easy - let me take Samarium -element number 62 - makes it more interesting don't you think? We will fill by the Aufbau principle and note the Pauli exclusion principle that no two electrons can have the same set of quantum numbers because they cant occupy the same space. So Samarium must be 1s2 ,2s2, 2p6, 3s2, 3p6, 4s2, 3d10, 4p6 (that takes us to Krypton by the way) then it would go 5s2, 4d10, 5p6 (up to Xenon) 6s2 4f6 (Lanthanum would have been interesting by the way having 5d1 but lets not go there)

OK so what does this mean. Well the principle quantum number is 6 - and the azimuthal quantum numbers (I am sorry I know you could use orbital angular momentum quantum number, but my first professor taught me azimuthal) must be 0 up to 5 - So s =0, p=1, d=2, f=3 (g and h are possible in theory )

I just realized I should have chosen Europium as that would be f7 - and that would give us what is called "Maximum spin multiplicity" - the electrons in these orbitals would all align parallel. I liken it to a train (there you are mods back on topic of trains) - person one fills an empty seat but person 2 would not sit next to that person but fill another empty seat. This is energetically favorable.

Now this post has got too long so I will continue with magnetic and spin quantum numbers in a later post. Notice I use orbital - the region of maximum probability of finding an electron - not the old Bohr model of orbit.

By the way if you integrate over all areas of space then the probability of finding the electron must be 1 !! The electron has to be somewhere!

Now of course you might say to yourself - well this guy could have just googled all this and cut and pasted or similar - but you are welcome to continue this in private email

Graham A. Howarth, BSc (Hons), MSc(distinction); DIC, C.Chem, FRSC, FTSC, C.Sci, MICorr, MIM - now that is just me being a total showoff.

OK, so you do understand Quantum mechanics!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

OK, so you do understand Quantum mechanics!

Or should I say "a fair bit more than the rest of us" ?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

And I have to ask, is DIC a Diploma in Computerisation ?

Diploma of Imperial College

Lejog BSc ARCS PhD DIC

Correct - and you are an Associate of the Royal College of Science also-nice. I am ARSM - Royal School of Mines Bessemer Building. Prof Reese Rawlings, Gwyn Hocking etc.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In poker terms I will close simply by saying I'll raise you thirty years in the industry retiring with an all stations status pass against the lowly status the restricted ambitions of so many posters on here display.

If you care to read the postings that have been made on the last few pages, you will find to your surprise that there are a numbers of us who are regular contributors to this website who do not fall into your stated category of "lowly status" and "restricted ambitions" that you chose to use in your posting.

 

[Bantamzen]

If you care to read the postings that have been made on the last few pages, you will find to your surprise that there are a numbers of us who are regular contributors to this website who do not fall into your stated category of "lowly status" and "restricted ambitions" that you chose to use in your posting.

And even those of us considered as "lowlies" (is that a word, it is now!) can see that TBF's suggestion of the chord between the Calder Valley and Manchester Piccadilly would still not resolve the issue of Airport bound services crossing the throat at Picc, causing pathing issues which was one of the primary reasons for the Ordsall Chord in the first instance. Even experts in their field sometimes get things wrong or miss the obvious. For instance, just ask the good folk of Leeds as they are walking through the recently built Trinity Centre when the wind blows in a certain direction. A beautiful piece of modern design, that completely forgot to take into account the wind tunnel effect it's curved roof has when the wind blows in from the north or the east.....

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Correct - and you are an Associate of the Royal College of Science also-nice. I am ARSM - Royal School of Mines Bessemer Building. Prof Reese Rawlings, Gwyn Hocking etc.

I shall now take my Only Fools and Horses reference and run away rapidly.

(DIC is what Del used to describe Rodney when he passed his computer course, at the same time as he rebranded the company TIT)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If you care to read the postings that have been made on the last few pages, you will find to your surprise that there are a numbers of us who are regular contributors to this website who do not fall into your stated category of "lowly status" and "restricted ambitions" that you chose to use in your posting.

He may be right concerning my lowly status. I've only got the one degree, unlike a couple of my esteemed fellow posters, who have at least two degrees each.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

I've only got an HNC - am I allowed to continue contributing?

 

[davyp]

So, "When will I see you again?" - there you go, 3 Degrees
Actually, only a Cert. Ed.

 

[lejog]

If you care to read the postings that have been made on the last few pages, you will find to your surprise that there are a numbers of us who are regular contributors to this website who do not fall into your stated category of "lowly status" and "restricted ambitions" that you chose to use in your posting.

TBirdFrank's comments about illiteracy amused me (although I admit to not spelling Inquiry correctly). As well as posters on this forum, he obviously included the High Court judge who found the whole process including consultation satisfactory (indeed described parts of it as excellent).

It also did occur to me that it was strange that someone with such a distinguished managerial career thought the way to best present their case to a Public Consultation/Inquiry and influence their decision was to turn up at a meeting and start protesting - whatever you may think of Whitby you can't deny he has skills in that particular area.

While I note Phillip Plopp's comments about the veracity of the Peter principle in the rail industry of old, it is also really difficult to see how anyone who has held any sort of senior position thinks that shouting at or calling your peers/superiors illiterate is an effective way of presenting your case.

I am sorry but only a complete illiterate could describe the planning and consultation process leading up to this decision as satisfactory.

I went to the joke that was the choice of options. The choice had been made.

When I protested that the process was an insult to the public I was quickly removed from the fray for a private discussion where the consultation manager commented that I obviously had specialist knowledge and would I therefore send in a written submission - all fine and dandy - but the answers to the questions available to the public were of the yes no interlude type that could be computer read. Specialist input was not wanted or responded to.

At the end of the day MOSI - the Science Museum was bought off for a measly £3m to keep their traps shut and under the hand of a director brought in to do the job. Her predecessor Steve Davies made his feelings about the probity of the decision crystal clear earlier this month - but that din't get reported either.

Finally as to the disgraceful and contemptible suggestion that public participation in planning should be outlawed by one means or another - may I remind the politically naive that along that road lies one party government and loss of freedom.

Millions fought and died for that last century so who is anyone born fifty years later to betray that?

 

[QueensCurve]

Out of interest, is anything else 'listed' impacted by the Ordsall Chord apart from the MOSI connection to the network? I know GS bridge will be more visible as the metal extension will be removed, but is there anything else?

Forgive me if this has been suggested before, but I wonder if there is a simple solution to the MOSI problem.

The link to MOSI could be retained as a flat crossing across the Ordsall Curve as used to exist where the Castleton to Rawtonstall crossed the Manchester to Bury line just outside Bury Interchange.

This might complicate signalling and interlockings, but the costs would be relatively small. It is unlikely to affect speeds on the Ordsall Chord since they are hardlyl likely to be breataking.

Given the rare use of the link to MOSI it would not cause any serious distruption to traffic.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In poker terms I will close simply by saying I'll raise you thirty years in the industry retiring with an all stations status pass against the lowly status the restricted ambitions of so many posters on here display.

Ooooohhhh.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Forgive me if this has been suggested before, but I wonder if there is a simple solution to the MOSI problem.

The link to MOSI could be retained as a flat crossing across the Ordsall Curve as used to exist where the Castleton to Rawtonstall crossed the Manchester to Bury line just outside Bury Interchange.

This might complicate signalling and interlockings, but the costs would be relatively small. It is unlikely to affect speeds on the Ordsall Chord since they are hardlyl likely to be breataking.

Given the rare use of the link to MOSI it would not cause any serious distruption to traffic.

Amazingly, given the alleged low intelligence of modern railway professionals :roll:, it has been thought of, investigated, designed, costed and dropped. The problem is that, assuming the flat crossing would be there to allow MOSI steam rides to cross the Chord, at eight trains an hour on the chord (minimum) there is never going to be enough time for the steam ride to get across.

If it didn't allow the ride to operate then it would be virtually unused (stock transfer / excursions - when did that last happen?).

Add to that that it introduces two square diamonds, two sets of trap points, more train detection and two signals into NR's asset (which would then have to be maintained), more opportunity for failures and that the square crossings would limit the speed on the chord (by capping the cant at virtually zero), and it really is a very costly idea for no benefit.

 

[QueensCurve]

Amazingly, given the alleged low intelligence of modern railway professionals

No such allegation on my part.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The problem is that, assuming the flat crossing would be there to allow MOSI steam rides to cross the Chord, at eight trains an hour on the chord (minimum) there is never going to be enough time for the steam ride to get across.

I don't know how many steam excursions there are at MOSI, but if there are 1 or 2 a weak perhaps the |Ordsall services could be suspened or delayed for a few mins while they went across?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

stock transfe

Could perhaps be done in the wee small hoors?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Add to that that it introduces two square diamonds, two sets of trap points, more train detection and two signals into NR's asset (which would then have to be maintained), more opportunity for failures and that the square crossings would limit the speed on the chord (by capping the cant at virtually zero), and it really is a very costly idea for no benefit.

Perhaps the costs are bigger than I thought having forgotten that flank protection was back in vogue again, that the modification might be simple. It might not even require additional signals and I would have thought, given the tightness of the curve, the flat junctions and the intensity of the service the speed on the curve would in any case be minimal cf 2omph on Parkside, Lowton, etc.

Still, I stand corrected.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

No such allegation on my part.

Wasn't aimed at you....

I don't know how many steam excursions there are at MOSI,

one a decade?

but if there are 1 or 2 a weak perhaps the |Ordsall services could be suspened or delayed for a few mins while they went across?

Network Rail's regulatory framework is not that forgiving,

Perhaps the costs are bigger than I thought having forgotten that flank protection was back in vogue again, that the modification might be simple. It might not even require additional signals and I would have thought, given the tightness of the curve, the flat junctions and the intensity of the service the speed on the curve would in any case be minimal cf 2omph on Parkside, Lowton, etc.

Still, I stand corrected.

It is nothing to do with flank protection (which never went out of "vogue"; a conflicting movement would require a movement authority (e.g. a signal) and given the nature of the MOSI trains approaching I would be of the view that trapping protection would be required.

The chord is 30mph and that is on the limit for cant deficiency at the radius.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I shall now take my Only Fools and Horses reference and run away rapidly.

(DIC is what Del used to describe Rodney when he passed his computer course, at the same time as he rebranded the company TIT)

no sir please don't run away - all good fun.

I've only got an HNC - am I allowed to continue contributing?

With your skills and commonsense - please carry on.

So, "When will I see you again?" - there you go, 3 Degrees
Actually, only a Cert. Ed.

 

[edwin_m]

You could rebuild the MOSI line a bit higher with a gap where it crosses the chord, and shoot the MOSI trains across at great speed in the gaps between service trains. They were supposed to be powered by a Rocket after all...

Edwin (only one degree, none of which was applied while making this post).

 

[HowardGWR]

Actually I do remember reading about a driver in the early days being asked at an accident Inquiry (note spelling) what he would do at a flat crossing if he saw another train crossing in front of him. He replied 'I should just put on steam and blow the impertinent fellow off the rails'.

So in this respect, some fascinating historical re-enactments could have taken place at MOSI.

Edit: A levels and then straight into computing, so all practical thereafter, I am afraid.

 

[Elecman]

Actually I do remember reading about a driver in the early days being asked at an accident Inquiry (note spelling) what he would do at a flat crossing if he saw another train crossing in front of him. He replied 'I should just put on steam and blow the impertinent fellow off the rails'.

So in this respect, some fascinating historical re-enactments could have taken place at MOSI.

Edit: A levels and then straight into computing, so all practical thereafter, I am afraid.

Howard, I'm sure that was Brunels answer to Lardner Diosious ( may have spelt that wrong) who was one of the favoured early railway experimentalist a who's special train was delayed at Paddington and then told to run wrong line until he saw a steam plume in the distance on the same line. on his enquiring about Brunels intentions on meeting him on the same piece of track in opposite directions during the early days of the GWR.

 

[edwin_m]

Howard, I'm sure that was Brunels answer to Lardner Diosious ( may have spelt that wrong) who was one of the favoured early railway experimentalist a who's special train was delayed at Paddington and then told to run wrong line until he saw a steam plume in the distance on the same line. on his enquiring about Brunels intentions on meeting him on the same piece of track in opposite directions during the early days of the GWR.

You're thinking of Dionysius Lardner, whose Wikipedia entry suggests that his knowledge of railways was of a similar level to that of a certain other individual mentioned in this thread. As far as I can see he only had two degrees.