Search results

What does that even mean?

Does that not teach you that fighting over this undefined concept of "sovereignty" for no good reason is not a good idea?

Do you consider requiring that anything published is correct, and if it isn't then the error is corrected, to be "too prescriptive"? I would consider it to be a basic requirement which should be a given.

The length of the article depends how much there is to say, the point is that the correction should have equal prominence. Mandating the length of an article regardless of how much there actually is to say makes no sense, one line might be all there is to say.

Without commenting on whether this is a good idea, what you described would be prevented by the clause "issue a correction with equal prominence to the original claim".

It's been a week now, and the OP still hasn't been back to answer the fundamental question of why Labour might want to seek a coalition with the Conservatives when that they are likely to either have a majority government or at least be in a strong position to form a coalition with parties much...

Why? Labour are generally expected to get a majority art the next election, so why would it be in their interest to form a coalition with the Conservative party? Even if Labour don't get a majority, there are other parties closer to Labour that the could for a coalition with if they need to.

You should be able to check on any ticket machine with an Oyster reader.

There is another thread for this, where your claims of "respecting democracy" have already been answered many times.

Not a whole station, but the Thameslink platform at Wimbledon meets this description.

That was presumably where the assumption of twice the efficiency came from, and the subsequent calculations showed that even if twice the efficiency is assumed, the amount of batteries required is still unpractically large.

There are other options such as bio-coal, but even out of those options batteries are by far the least practical, and the furthest removed from what heritage railways are actually trying to preserve.

If you think through the issues, it is fairly obvious that it far less operationally practical, and further removed from what heritage railways are actually trying to preserve, than any combustible fuel.

That all sounds like a solution in search of a problem, and with so many practical barriers it sounds doubtful it could be cost effective or even technically feasible.

What example did you provide of a steam engine successfully working from battery power? Also I'm not sure how mentioning why other options are better that what you suggested constitutes "making a big deal out of it" or is a bad thing to contribute to a discussion What examples of steam engines...

The question is, is running steam trains on batteries technically feasible given how low the energy density of batteries is? If it's not technically achievable then whether it is "better than not running at all" is irrelevant. There will always be better options than batteries available, such...

Already suggested, and the issue there is that the energy density of even the best batteries available is far lower than coal or any similar solid fuel.

As already mentioned, these were powered by overhead lines so not suitable for a non-electrified heritage line.

The engine in that picture is powered by overhead lines, not batteries in the tender as was suggested, so does not prove that what was suggested is technically feasible. The main technical issue would be energy density - even the best batteries available have nowhere near the energy density of...

I think it's clear enough why this idea is a complete non-starter for London, and anywhere else which doesn't have a widely-spoken second language.