In message <bf3nvkdqp2vpman5d16vaqka8lghshsfc9@4ax.com>, at 19:53:53 on
Wed, 6 May 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
Out of interest (because I don't know) is there any action that can be >>>>taken against the owner (rolling stock company) for infringement of >>>>patent?
Haven't any patents run out long ago?
I was responding to the comment made by Charles 'but not without
infringing patents etc'.
Ignore Charles, he's just following modern social media protocol of
throwing out nonsense, in order to create "engagement" when people
respond. Problem is, he can't monetise it (like people can on other >platforms) so I do wonder why he bothers.
On Thu, 7 May 2026 08:30:53 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <bf3nvkdqp2vpman5d16vaqka8lghshsfc9@4ax.com>, at 19:53:53 on >>Wed, 6 May 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:Then maybe your wondering up the wrong path ?
Out of interest (because I don't know) is there any action that can be >>>>>taken against the owner (rolling stock company) for infringement of >>>>>patent?
Haven't any patents run out long ago?
I was responding to the comment made by Charles 'but not without >>>infringing patents etc'.
Ignore Charles, he's just following modern social media protocol of >>throwing out nonsense, in order to create "engagement" when people
respond. Problem is, he can't monetise it (like people can on other >>platforms) so I do wonder why he bothers.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 20:22:55 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:28:09 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:37:22 +0200newer
Bob <nospam@gmail.com> gabbled:
On 29/04/2026 17:03, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
Sitting at london bridge today I saw and heard a couple of 465s leaving >>>>> the platforms which were make distinctly old school 1990s gear changing >>>> sounds
as they accelerated. I though these 2 classes had all been upgraded to
Not inevitably BREL rather than the suppliers of the defectivetraction drives? I can't imagine its worth doing any left over given they >>>>> probably only have 10 years of service life left.
There were two fleets of class 465: one built by BREL/ABB and the other >>>> by Metro-Cammell (all the 466 are MetCam). The BREL/ABB fleet had
reliability issues with their traction equipment so had it replaced by >>>> Hitachi equipment in 2009/2010. The MetCam units retain their as-built
Interestingly the 92 stock on the Central Line was also built by BREL around
the same time and also had to have its traction systems replaced. Not sure >>> what that says about BREL build quality.
components. The original motors were supplied by ABB/Brush with their
original fixing bolts maybe obtained from a barrow at the Cut.
I would have assumed for the basic electronic components both BREL and MC would have obtained them from the same manufacturers. There can't be that many who made train spec ones back then? I suppose now there are probably
a couple of dozen chinese ones who sell them.
On 01/05/2026 11:32, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
I would have assumed for the basic electronic components both BREL and MC
would have obtained them from the same manufacturers. There can't be that
many who made train spec ones back then? I suppose now there are probably
a couple of dozen chinese ones who sell them.
Although visually similar, interoperable and built to the same spec, the >BREL/ABB and MetroCammell 465 variants are different in almost every way >that matters, there was no coordination on their design. The BREL/ABB
units had Brush traction inverters and Brush traction motors, with the >inverters replaced by Hitachi units. The MC had, and still have, GEC
Alsthom traction motors and GEC Alsthom inverters.
On Fri, 8 May 2026 09:31:53 +0200
Bob <nospam@gmail.com> gabbled:
On 01/05/2026 11:32, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
I would have assumed for the basic electronic components both BREL and MC >>> would have obtained them from the same manufacturers. There can't be that >>> many who made train spec ones back then? I suppose now there are probably >>> a couple of dozen chinese ones who sell them.
Although visually similar, interoperable and built to the same spec, the
BREL/ABB and MetroCammell 465 variants are different in almost every way
that matters, there was no coordination on their design. The BREL/ABB
units had Brush traction inverters and Brush traction motors, with the
inverters replaced by Hitachi units. The MC had, and still have, GEC
Alsthom traction motors and GEC Alsthom inverters.
Sounds like typical public sector lack of co-ordination. Having recently completed a 2 year contract with an offshoot of the civil service though still run by them, my opinion of civil servants has only got worse.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Fri, 8 May 2026 09:31:53 +0200
Bob <nospam@gmail.com> gabbled:
On 01/05/2026 11:32, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
I would have assumed for the basic electronic components both BREL and MC >>>> would have obtained them from the same manufacturers. There can't be that >>>> many who made train spec ones back then? I suppose now there are probably >>>> a couple of dozen chinese ones who sell them.
Although visually similar, interoperable and built to the same spec, the >>> BREL/ABB and MetroCammell 465 variants are different in almost every way >>> that matters, there was no coordination on their design. The BREL/ABB
units had Brush traction inverters and Brush traction motors, with the
inverters replaced by Hitachi units. The MC had, and still have, GEC
Alsthom traction motors and GEC Alsthom inverters.
Sounds like typical public sector lack of co-ordination. Having recently
completed a 2 year contract with an offshoot of the civil service though
still run by them, my opinion of civil servants has only got worse.
Why was that a bad decision? They specified where the trains had to be >compatible, then left it to the supplier to design the rest itself. That >tends to lead to better products, as here.
On Fri, 08 May 2026 09:37:51 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Fri, 8 May 2026 09:31:53 +0200
Bob <nospam@gmail.com> gabbled:
On 01/05/2026 11:32, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
I would have assumed for the basic electronic components both BREL and MC >>>>> would have obtained them from the same manufacturers. There can't be that >>>>> many who made train spec ones back then? I suppose now there are probably >>>>> a couple of dozen chinese ones who sell them.
Although visually similar, interoperable and built to the same spec, the >>>> BREL/ABB and MetroCammell 465 variants are different in almost every way >>>> that matters, there was no coordination on their design. The BREL/ABB >>>> units had Brush traction inverters and Brush traction motors, with the >>>> inverters replaced by Hitachi units. The MC had, and still have, GEC
Alsthom traction motors and GEC Alsthom inverters.
Sounds like typical public sector lack of co-ordination. Having recently >>> completed a 2 year contract with an offshoot of the civil service though >>> still run by them, my opinion of civil servants has only got worse.
Why was that a bad decision? They specified where the trains had to be
compatible, then left it to the supplier to design the rest itself. That
tends to lead to better products, as here.
Swapability of parts and you don't have to train the maintenance staff twice.
On Fri, 8 May 2026 09:31:53 +0200
Bob <nospam@gmail.com> gabbled:
On 01/05/2026 11:32, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
I would have assumed for the basic electronic components both BREL
and MC
would have obtained them from the same manufacturers. There can't be
that
many who made train spec ones back then? I suppose now there are
probably
a couple of dozen chinese ones who sell them.
Although visually similar, interoperable and built to the same spec,
the BREL/ABB and MetroCammell 465 variants are different in almost
every way that matters, there was no coordination on their design. The
BREL/ABB units had Brush traction inverters and Brush traction motors,
with the inverters replaced by Hitachi units. The MC had, and still
have, GEC Alsthom traction motors and GEC Alsthom inverters.
Sounds like typical public sector lack of co-ordination. Having recently completed a 2 year contract with an offshoot of the civil service though still run by them, my opinion of civil servants has only got worse.
On 08/05/2026 11:25, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Fri, 8 May 2026 09:31:53 +0200
Bob <nospam@gmail.com> gabbled:
On 01/05/2026 11:32, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
I would have assumed for the basic electronic components both BREL
and MC
would have obtained them from the same manufacturers. There can't be
that
many who made train spec ones back then? I suppose now there are
probably
a couple of dozen chinese ones who sell them.
Although visually similar, interoperable and built to the same spec,
the BREL/ABB and MetroCammell 465 variants are different in almost
every way that matters, there was no coordination on their design. The
BREL/ABB units had Brush traction inverters and Brush traction motors,
with the inverters replaced by Hitachi units. The MC had, and still
have, GEC Alsthom traction motors and GEC Alsthom inverters.
Sounds like typical public sector lack of co-ordination. Having recently
completed a 2 year contract with an offshoot of the civil service though
still run by them, my opinion of civil servants has only got worse.
It was deliberate BR policy to dual-source things wherever possible.
This can be seen in rolling stock, but it applied more widely eg with >signalling equipment. With a single railway company, if it went for >single-sourcing, then the alternate suppliers would get no business and >likely go out of business. That would lead to a monopoly with all the >potential damage that brings. By dual sourcing, although there would be >inefficiences operationally, it was felt that ensuring a competitive
market for suppliers was worth the cost.
In rolling stock terms, you can see a number of examples of pairs of >compatible and essentially equivalent contemporaries from different >suppliers: 143 and 144, 150 and 151, 155 and 156.
On Fri, 8 May 2026 12:21:35 +0200, Bob <nospam@gmail.com> wrote:
On 08/05/2026 11:25, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:I assume globalisation has demolished this logic?
On Fri, 8 May 2026 09:31:53 +0200
Bob <nospam@gmail.com> gabbled:
On 01/05/2026 11:32, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
I would have assumed for the basic electronic components both BREL
and MC
would have obtained them from the same manufacturers. There can't be >>>>> that
many who made train spec ones back then? I suppose now there are
probably
a couple of dozen chinese ones who sell them.
Although visually similar, interoperable and built to the same spec,
the BREL/ABB and MetroCammell 465 variants are different in almost
every way that matters, there was no coordination on their design. The >>>> BREL/ABB units had Brush traction inverters and Brush traction motors, >>>> with the inverters replaced by Hitachi units. The MC had, and still
have, GEC Alsthom traction motors and GEC Alsthom inverters.
Sounds like typical public sector lack of co-ordination. Having recently >>> completed a 2 year contract with an offshoot of the civil service though >>> still run by them, my opinion of civil servants has only got worse.
It was deliberate BR policy to dual-source things wherever possible.
This can be seen in rolling stock, but it applied more widely eg with >>signalling equipment. With a single railway company, if it went for >>single-sourcing, then the alternate suppliers would get no business and >>likely go out of business. That would lead to a monopoly with all the >>potential damage that brings. By dual sourcing, although there would be >>inefficiences operationally, it was felt that ensuring a competitive >>market for suppliers was worth the cost.
In rolling stock terms, you can see a number of examples of pairs of >>compatible and essentially equivalent contemporaries from different >>suppliers: 143 and 144, 150 and 151, 155 and 156.
On Fri, 08 May 2026 14:56:39 +0100, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 8 May 2026 12:21:35 +0200, Bob <nospam@gmail.com> wrote:
On 08/05/2026 11:25, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:I assume globalisation has demolished this logic?
On Fri, 8 May 2026 09:31:53 +0200
Bob <nospam@gmail.com> gabbled:
On 01/05/2026 11:32, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
I would have assumed for the basic electronic components both BREL >>>>>> and MC
would have obtained them from the same manufacturers. There can't be >>>>>> that
many who made train spec ones back then? I suppose now there are
probably
a couple of dozen chinese ones who sell them.
Although visually similar, interoperable and built to the same spec, >>>>> the BREL/ABB and MetroCammell 465 variants are different in almost
every way that matters, there was no coordination on their design. The >>>>> BREL/ABB units had Brush traction inverters and Brush traction motors, >>>>> with the inverters replaced by Hitachi units. The MC had, and still >>>>> have, GEC Alsthom traction motors and GEC Alsthom inverters.
Sounds like typical public sector lack of co-ordination. Having recently >>>> completed a 2 year contract with an offshoot of the civil service though >>>> still run by them, my opinion of civil servants has only got worse.
It was deliberate BR policy to dual-source things wherever possible. >>>This can be seen in rolling stock, but it applied more widely eg with >>>signalling equipment. With a single railway company, if it went for >>>single-sourcing, then the alternate suppliers would get no business and >>>likely go out of business. That would lead to a monopoly with all the >>>potential damage that brings. By dual sourcing, although there would be >>>inefficiences operationally, it was felt that ensuring a competitive >>>market for suppliers was worth the cost.
In rolling stock terms, you can see a number of examples of pairs of >>>compatible and essentially equivalent contemporaries from different >>>suppliers: 143 and 144, 150 and 151, 155 and 156.
The government still seems to be keen on keeping UK train factories open. That's why the HS2 train order is split
between Hitachi and Alstom.
On Fri, 08 May 2026 15:13:52 +0100, Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 08 May 2026 14:56:39 +0100, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 8 May 2026 12:21:35 +0200, Bob <nospam@gmail.com> wrote:
On 08/05/2026 11:25, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:I assume globalisation has demolished this logic?
On Fri, 8 May 2026 09:31:53 +0200
Bob <nospam@gmail.com> gabbled:
On 01/05/2026 11:32, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
I would have assumed for the basic electronic components both BREL >>>>>>> and MC
would have obtained them from the same manufacturers. There can't be >>>>>>> that
many who made train spec ones back then? I suppose now there are >>>>>>> probably
a couple of dozen chinese ones who sell them.
Although visually similar, interoperable and built to the same spec, >>>>>> the BREL/ABB and MetroCammell 465 variants are different in almost >>>>>> every way that matters, there was no coordination on their design. The >>>>>> BREL/ABB units had Brush traction inverters and Brush traction motors, >>>>>> with the inverters replaced by Hitachi units. The MC had, and still >>>>>> have, GEC Alsthom traction motors and GEC Alsthom inverters.
Sounds like typical public sector lack of co-ordination. Having recently >>>>> completed a 2 year contract with an offshoot of the civil service though >>>>> still run by them, my opinion of civil servants has only got worse.
It was deliberate BR policy to dual-source things wherever possible. >>>>This can be seen in rolling stock, but it applied more widely eg with >>>>signalling equipment. With a single railway company, if it went for >>>>single-sourcing, then the alternate suppliers would get no business and >>>>likely go out of business. That would lead to a monopoly with all the >>>>potential damage that brings. By dual sourcing, although there would be >>>>inefficiences operationally, it was felt that ensuring a competitive >>>>market for suppliers was worth the cost.
In rolling stock terms, you can see a number of examples of pairs of >>>>compatible and essentially equivalent contemporaries from different >>>>suppliers: 143 and 144, 150 and 151, 155 and 156.
The government still seems to be keen on keeping UK train factories open. That's why the HS2 train order is split
between Hitachi and Alstom.
But in terms of components, is there any attempt to prevent sourcing
them from the same supplier in China?
On Fri, 08 May 2026 15:22:48 +0100, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> >wrote:
The government still seems to be keen on keeping UK train factories open. >That's why the HS2 train order is split
between Hitachi and Alstom.
But in terms of components, is there any attempt to prevent sourcing
them from the same supplier in China?
I suspect that both are too protectionist for that. They're basically Hitachi >Italy trains that will be finished off at
Litchurch Lane in attempt to keep the works open.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 10:50:43 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (7,546K bytes) |
| Messages: | 265,193 |