Cl*rks*n

[Colin Blackburn]

I had the misfortune to see Top Gear last night---it seems to be more of
a comedy prog than a car prog these days. They mentioned that guy who'd
developed the steam bicycle, expressing bemusement at his marrying of an
"outdated technology" and an "old technology." I wonder which they
considered outdated and whether the guy saying this, not Cla*rks*n, was
aware of his outdated haircut. When was the internal combustion engine
invented?

Colin

[W K]

"Colin Blackburn" > wrote in message
news:MPG.197c72ba5e124d8f989ae8@localhost...

> I wonder which they
> considered outdated and whether the guy saying this, not Cla*rks*n, was
> aware of his outdated haircut.

Maybe. He's intelligent enough to see the joke, but has a rather primitive
sense of humour that lets him carry on and on with such things.

In the Times a couple of weeks ago he was on about yob culture in britain
and how people have stupid hair cuts. There were letters the week after

[Farmer Alfalfa]

"Andy Koppe" <a n d y @ d c s . e d . a c . u k> wrote in message
...
> > I had the misfortune to see Top Gear last night---it seems to be more of
> > a comedy prog than a car prog these days. They mentioned that guy who'd
> > developed the steam bicycle, expressing bemusement at his marrying of an
> > "outdated technology" and an "old technology." I wonder which they
> > considered outdated and whether the guy saying this, not Cla*rks*n, was
> > aware of his outdated haircut. When was the internal combustion engine
> > invented?
>
> Not to mention the carriage ...

Top Gear is more about drivers than cars these days.

Best avoided.

F A

[Tenex]

Colin Blackburn wrote:
> I had the misfortune to see Top Gear last night---it seems to be more
> of a comedy prog than a car prog these days.


Surely everyone realises he's simply a product of the BBC? After all, the
current programme is all about Clarkson rather than the cars as was the old
TG. The old team were a great collection, but the BBC put money behind
programming the Clarkson talk show and then resurrected TG in its place as
the name has wider appeal. He's genuinely funny some of the time but the %
has slipped as his time on camera has increased - I don't watch TG for that
reason, but occasionally read a few para's from the Sunday Times. (as for
old and new tech: JC has never ever varied from the line that new cars are
always better than old cars - a very clever and sensible way of ensuring the
manufacturers love him)

He's there to provoke the odd controversy, not to educate or represent the
views of a substantial group. Sadly, this is what passes for light
entertainment under their Toniness and Gregness. Give me BBC7 repeats of
Dad's Army in preference any day.... at least there's a modicum of humour
somewhere in there.

[Mike K Smith]

Farmer Alfalfa wrote:
>
> "Andy Koppe" <a n d y @ d c s . e d . a c . u k> wrote in message
> ...
> > > I had the misfortune to see Top Gear last night---it seems to be more of
> > > a comedy prog than a car prog these days. They mentioned that guy who'd
> > > developed the steam bicycle, expressing bemusement at his marrying of an
> > > "outdated technology" and an "old technology." I wonder which they
> > > considered outdated and whether the guy saying this, not Cla*rks*n, was
> > > aware of his outdated haircut. When was the internal combustion engine
> > > invented?
> >
> > Not to mention the carriage ...
>
> Top Gear is more about drivers than cars these days.
Top Gear is mostly about Clarkson these days.

In my view it should be renamed to something more fitting like "The
Clarkson's The Star", "Jeremy Clarkson's Motor Ego" or even "Prat Ego"!

[Tenex]

al_Mossah wrote:
> Our JC also mentioned that the Tories had promised to introduce
> various policies to appease the "road lobby" like ripping up loads of
> speedbumps,

Barnet have/are ripping up all the speed bumps believing they cause more
pollution and unacceptable delay to emergency vehicles.

> Darling's plans to widen "every road in Britain". The audience was
> non-plussed- they didn't know whether they were supposed to cheer.

They simply didn't believe New Labour ....

[Not me, someone else]

Colin Blackburn deftly scribbled:

> I had the misfortune to see Top Gear last night---it seems to be more
> of a comedy prog than a car prog these days.

You 'had the misfortune to see' ... bull**** .. You just thought you'd watch
it 'cos you like it and thought you could poke fun at the items in it.

> They mentioned that guy
> who'd developed the steam bicycle, expressing bemusement at his
> marrying of an "outdated technology" and an "old technology."

So how many steam driven vehicles are in regular use nowadays ?

> I
> wonder which they considered outdated and whether the guy saying
> this, not Cla*rks*n, was aware of his outdated haircut. When was the
> internal combustion engine invented?

The internal combustion engine is still being developed though, and is still
in use in great numbers, showing that it doesn't matter how long ago it was
invented, but how useful it actually is. It's still in development, gaining
more horsepower, losing weight, and improving efficiency all the time.

The Steam Engine isn't.

--
Digweed

[Colin Blackburn]

In article >,
says...

> The internal combustion engine is still being developed though, and is still
> in use in great numbers, showing that it doesn't matter how long ago it was
> invented, but how useful it actually is. It's still in development, gaining
> more horsepower, losing weight, and improving efficiency all the time.
>
> The Steam Engine isn't.

If you had half a brain you'd perhaps comprehend that the gist here is
the development of the bicycle. This is a cycling newsgroup after all.
The bicycle has continued to develop in much the same way.

Colin

[Dave Larrington]

Tenex wrote:

> Surely everyone realises he's simply a product of the BBC? After all,
> the current programme is all about Clarkson rather than the cars as
> was the old TG.

Except that Clarkson was still Clarkson before he ever set foot inside the
BBC. His columns for "Performance Car" were just the same.

> (as for old
> and new tech: JC has never ever varied from the line that new cars
> are always better than old cars - a very clever and sensible way of
> ensuring the manufacturers love him)

Except Vauxhall...

Do not take Clarkson seriously, O World, for you will only make yourself
appear foolish...

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

[Dave Larrington]

Colin Blackburn wrote:


> The bicycle has continued to develop in much the same way.

Except that it has developed very very s-l-o-o-o-o-o-w-l-y, thanks in no
small part to the Romans^H^H^H^H^H^H UCI and their multi-page definition of
what a "bicycle" is. Materials yes, and likewise stuff like gears and
brakes, but if you were to show a Victorian a photo of Lance Armstrong's
bike, he'd know it was a bicycle. But if you showed him a photo of a Ford
Focus, he might have difficulty recognising it as a direct-line descendant
of a Benz Viktoria.

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

[Peter Connolly]

> He's there to provoke the odd controversy, not to educate or represent the
> views of a substantial group.

And it works, judging by the number of messages here everytime he says
something 'controversial'!

I regard him as similar to 'modern art'; it exists only to induce comment,
good or bad. The best way to approach it (and Clarkson) is to just ignore
it.

Regards,

Pete.

[Colin Blackburn]

In article >,
says...

> Except that it has developed very very s-l-o-o-o-o-o-w-l-y, thanks in no
> small part to the Romans^H^H^H^H^H^H UCI and their multi-page definition of
> what a "bicycle" is. Materials yes, and likewise stuff like gears and
> brakes, but if you were to show a Victorian a photo of Lance Armstrong's
> bike, he'd know it was a bicycle. But if you showed him a photo of a Ford
> Focus, he might have difficulty recognising it as a direct-line descendant
> of a Benz Viktoria.

True for for last 20 years but I don't think the average car in the
seventies and early eighties was a lot different from the earliest cars
other than body shape. Development until then was pretty much the same,
stuff like materials, gears, brakes... of course there was engine
development too but then that bit isn't comparable with bikes---unless
count the development of performance enhancing drugs^W^W^W modern
training and diet regimes.

Colin

[Tenex]

Peter Connolly wrote:
>> He's there to provoke the odd controversy, not to educate or
>> represent the views of a substantial group.
>
> And it works, judging by the number of messages here everytime he says
> something 'controversial'!
>
> I regard him as similar to 'modern art'; it exists only to induce
> comment, good or bad. The best way to approach it (and Clarkson) is
> to just ignore it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pete.

Agreed on both counts - I can't understand why p[eople here get so vexed.

[Andy Koppe]

>> He's there to provoke the odd controversy, not to educate or represent
>> the views of a substantial group.
>
> And it works, judging by the number of messages here everytime he says
> something 'controversial'!
>
> I regard him as similar to 'modern art'; it exists only to induce comment,
> good or bad. The best way to approach it (and Clarkson) is to just ignore
> it.

Trouble is, millions of people, presumably most of them car drivers, do not
ignore it and watch it every week.

Now I'm not saying that Clarkson was directly responsible for any
car-bicycle accidents, but his comments as well as similar ones in
newspapers and other media are likely to reinforce existing prejudices and
aversions.

E.g., when he claims that "bicycles take up too much space on the roads",
lots of drivers will say "right he is" and feel vindicated in squeezing
past cyclists inches from the handlebar or shouting at them for not using
poorly-designed cyclepaths.

It doesn't really matter whether Clarkson means such statements in jest or
not. After all, racist "jokes" aren't funny either.

Just my two kopeks,
Andy

[Colin Blackburn]

In article >,
says...
> Peter Connolly wrote:
> >> He's there to provoke the odd controversy, not to educate or
> >> represent the views of a substantial group.
> >
> > And it works, judging by the number of messages here everytime he says
> > something 'controversial'!
> >
> > I regard him as similar to 'modern art'; it exists only to induce
> > comment, good or bad. The best way to approach it (and Clarkson) is
> > to just ignore it.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Pete.
>
> Agreed on both counts - I can't understand why p[eople here get so vexed.

I don't think people are vexed. Then again I judge each piece of art on
its own merits.

Colin

[Ambrose Nankivell]

In ,
Dave Larrington > typed:
> Tenex wrote:
>
>> Surely everyone realises he's simply a product of the BBC? After all,
>> the current programme is all about Clarkson rather than the cars as
>> was the old TG.
>
> Except that Clarkson was still Clarkson before he ever set foot
> inside the BBC. His columns for "Performance Car" were just the same.

Except I distinctly remember him writing ones about riding bikes then. Just
for urban trips, mind. To the pub, of course.

[Dave Larrington]

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:

> Except I distinctly remember him writing ones about riding bikes
> then. Just for urban trips, mind. To the pub, of course.

He did indeed. He claimed to have bought an old Raleigh Wayfarer to ride to
the White Horse in Parsons Green, but his cycling phase lasted no time, coz
apparently he had to push it home all the time, thereby defeating the object
of having it in the first place.

Then it got stolen.

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

[Tenex]

Colin Blackburn wrote:
Then again I judge each piece of art on its own merits.
>
> Colin

If you want to occupy the moral high ground you're going to have to do
better than that. ;-)

[Andy Dingley]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 12:17:32 +0100, "Not me, someone else"
> wrote:

>So how many steam driven vehicles are in regular use nowadays ?

Many large ships and almost every submarine.

[Not me, someone else]

Andy Dingley deftly scribbled:

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 12:17:32 +0100, "Not me, someone else"
> > wrote:
>
>> So how many steam driven vehicles are in regular use nowadays ?
>
> Many large ships and almost every submarine.

Heheheh .. submarines ... steam driven .. ???

--
Digweed

[W K]

"Not me, someone else" > wrote in message
...
> Andy Dingley deftly scribbled:
>
> > On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 12:17:32 +0100, "Not me, someone else"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> So how many steam driven vehicles are in regular use nowadays ?
> >
> > Many large ships and almost every submarine.
>
> Heheheh .. submarines ... steam driven .. ???

Yep. I don't know about "almost every" as there might be some
diesel/electric ones.

[Not me, someone else]

W K deftly scribbled:

> "Not me, someone else" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Andy Dingley deftly scribbled:
>>
>>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 12:17:32 +0100, "Not me, someone else"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> So how many steam driven vehicles are in regular use nowadays ?
>>>
>>> Many large ships and almost every submarine.
>>
>> Heheheh .. submarines ... steam driven .. ???
>
> Yep. I don't know about "almost every" as there might be some
> diesel/electric ones.

Well if it's true ...

Just seems unfeasible .. ;) I mean, I've heard of diesel, electric, nuclear
and gas turbine (I think) powered subs, but steam driven .. though I would
hazard a guess that steam may only used on the surface ? It may be noted I
know next to sod-all about submarines .. ;)

--
Digweed

[Andy Dingley]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:38:17 +0000 (UTC), "W K" >
wrote:

>Yep. I don't know about "almost every" as there might be some
>diesel/electric ones.

Plenty of diesels left, but the only really big fleet is the US navy,
and they're entirely nuclear. So is the RN (since we mothballed and
sold the Upholders) and I think the French too.

A nuke is as much a steam engine as Thomas the tank engine is. Not a
coal burner, but it boils water and drives a turbine with it.

Incidentally, there _were_ coal-burning steam submarines, with funnels
and everything. The RN K-class of WW1. If you've not seen them
before, dig a few references out. They didn't work as well as you
might expect.... In fact they were considerably more useless and
downright dangerous than anyone could have imagined, even allowing for
the need to seal a stupid number of large leak-prone hatches and put
the fires out before submerging.

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Forth%20submarine%20disaster

http://www.submarineheritage.com/gallery_kclass.htm

They were abominations.

[martin]

"Peter Connolly" > wrote in message >...


> I regard him as similar to 'modern art'; it exists only to induce comment,
> good or bad. The best way to approach it (and Clarkson) is to just ignore
> it.
>
And we all know that modern art is officially conceptual bulls**t;
there's plenty of both in TG.

[Farmer Alfalfa]

"Tenex" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Connolly wrote:
> >> He's there to provoke the odd controversy, not to educate or
> >> represent the views of a substantial group.
> >
> > And it works, judging by the number of messages here everytime he says
> > something 'controversial'!
> >
> > I regard him as similar to 'modern art'; it exists only to induce
> > comment, good or bad. The best way to approach it (and Clarkson) is
> > to just ignore it.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Pete.
>
> Agreed on both counts - I can't understand why p[eople here get so vexed.

Because he makes petrolheads feel better about themselves.

That has the knock-on effect that they are more likely to bore you in pubs
and at parties, and less likely to consider you when their four wheels
encounter your two.

....and let's not get into the politics of the road lobby...

F A

[Ambrose Nankivell]

"Andy Dingley" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:38:17 +0000 (UTC), "W K" >
> wrote:
>
> >Yep. I don't know about "almost every" as there might be some
> >diesel/electric ones.
>
> Plenty of diesels left, but the only really big fleet is the US navy,
> and they're entirely nuclear. So is the RN (since we mothballed and
> sold the Upholders) and I think the French too.
>
> A nuke is as much a steam engine as Thomas the tank engine is. Not a
> coal burner, but it boils water and drives a turbine with it.

Point of order: Thomas the Tank Engine is actually electric, but with a
cunning smoke machine hidden in his boiler. However, as about 70% (IIRC) of
Britain's mains electricity is produced by steam engines, you do have some
sort of an argument.

A

[Not me, someone else]

Andy Dingley deftly scribbled:

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:38:17 +0000 (UTC), "W K" >
> wrote:
>
>> Yep. I don't know about "almost every" as there might be some
>> diesel/electric ones.
>
> Plenty of diesels left, but the only really big fleet is the US navy,
> and they're entirely nuclear. So is the RN (since we mothballed and
> sold the Upholders) and I think the French too.
>
> A nuke is as much a steam engine as Thomas the tank engine is. Not a
> coal burner, but it boils water and drives a turbine with it.
>
> Incidentally, there _were_ coal-burning steam submarines, with funnels
> and everything. The RN K-class of WW1. If you've not seen them
> before, dig a few references out. They didn't work as well as you
> might expect.... In fact they were considerably more useless and
> downright dangerous than anyone could have imagined, even allowing for
> the need to seal a stupid number of large leak-prone hatches and put
> the fires out before submerging.
>
> http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Forth%20submarine%20disaster
>
> http://www.submarineheritage.com/gallery_kclass.htm
>
> They were abominations.

OK, point taken that there are steam driven subs .. but they are hardly
vehicles in everyday use on our roads .. which was the bit that I didn't
specifically point out but that I thought was implicit as this is a cycling
newsgroup and the topic was road vehicle related .. ;)

I certainly can't remember seeing a submarine being driven up our road
recently .. and I *do* think I'd remember it if I had .. ;)


--
Digweed

[W K]

"Not me, someone else" > wrote in message
...
> Andy Dingley deftly scribbled:
>
> > On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:38:17 +0000 (UTC), "W K" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Yep. I don't know about "almost every" as there might be some
> >> diesel/electric ones.
> >
> > Plenty of diesels left, but the only really big fleet is the US navy,
> > and they're entirely nuclear. So is the RN (since we mothballed and
> > sold the Upholders) and I think the French too.
> >
> > A nuke is as much a steam engine as Thomas the tank engine is. Not a
> > coal burner, but it boils water and drives a turbine with it.
> >
> > Incidentally, there _were_ coal-burning steam submarines, with funnels
> > and everything. The RN K-class of WW1. If you've not seen them
> > before, dig a few references out. They didn't work as well as you
> > might expect.... In fact they were considerably more useless and
> > downright dangerous than anyone could have imagined, even allowing for
> > the need to seal a stupid number of large leak-prone hatches and put
> > the fires out before submerging.
> >
> > http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Forth%20submarine%20disaster
> >
> > http://www.submarineheritage.com/gallery_kclass.htm
> >
> > They were abominations.
>
> OK, point taken that there are steam driven subs .. but they are hardly
> vehicles in everyday use on our roads .. which was the bit that I didn't
> specifically point out but that I thought was implicit as this is a
cycling
> newsgroup and the topic was road vehicle related .. ;)
>
> I certainly can't remember seeing a submarine being driven up our road
> recently .. and I *do* think I'd remember it if I had .. ;)

submarines employ a large number of techniques to avoid detection you know.

[Andy Dingley]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:24:07 +0100, "Not me, someone else"
> wrote:

>I certainly can't remember seeing a submarine being driven up our road
>recently .. and I *do* think I'd remember it if I had .. ;)

Joy riders. Always a problem with subs.
http://www.submarine-history.com/NOVAalbacore2.jpg
http://www.submarine-history.com/NOVAalbacore1.jpg



(From http://www.submarine-history.com/NOVAfour.htm )

[Not me, someone else]

W K deftly scribbled:

> "Not me, someone else" > wrote in message

>> I certainly can't remember seeing a submarine being driven up our
>> road recently .. and I *do* think I'd remember it if I had .. ;)
>
> submarines employ a large number of techniques to avoid detection you
> know.

Heheheh .. yeah, a stealth sub, driving down the street. That would
possibly explain the amount of SMIDSY's .. a sub that wasn't quite stealthy
enough got in the way, forcing the car driver to not see the bike .. ;)


--
Digweed

[W K]

"Andy Dingley" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:24:07 +0100, "Not me, someone else"
> > wrote:
>
> >I certainly can't remember seeing a submarine being driven up our road
> >recently .. and I *do* think I'd remember it if I had .. ;)
>
> Joy riders. Always a problem with subs.
> http://www.submarine-history.com/NOVAalbacore2.jpg
> http://www.submarine-history.com/NOVAalbacore1.jpg


Uh-oh.
Not as bad as this creation - from holland - where else?
http://www.submarine-history.com/NOVAhollandone.gif

[Alan Braggins]

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>"Andy Dingley" > wrote in message
>> A nuke is as much a steam engine as Thomas the tank engine is. Not a
>> coal burner, but it boils water and drives a turbine with it.
>
>Point of order: Thomas the Tank Engine is actually electric, but with a
>cunning smoke machine hidden in his boiler.

You're thinking of a model Thomas the Tank Engine. The real Thomas is
a character in a book, and a steam engine.

[David Hansen]

On 16 Jul 2003 16:10:57 +0100 (BST) someone who may be
(Alan Braggins) wrote this:-

>>Point of order: Thomas the Tank Engine is actually electric, but with a
>>cunning smoke machine hidden in his boiler.
>
>You're thinking of a model Thomas the Tank Engine.

Probably the television version, which was an electrically powered
Gauge 1 version with various radio controlled things in the "boiler"
to control things like the eyes and perhaps the smoke/steam effects.

>The real Thomas is a character in a book, and a steam engine.

Some of the stories were based on the Talyllyn Railway, where the
Revd Awdrey was a volunteer for many years. From time to time they
have painted steam locomotives red and added faces. I think this is
wonderful, but the purists disagree.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

[James Hodson]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 20:31:20 -0000, Graeme
> wrote:

>James Hodson > wrote in
:
>>
>> OK, I may have the details of the above slightly wrong but the gist of
>> the thing is correct. See
>> <http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/pics/stepney.html> for
>> more details.
>
>Please, no more. It's bad enough that speed freaks such as PS post here,
>but we seem to be being taken over by train spotters! :-)
>

OK. I remembered it from a TV prog called classic trains narrated by
John Peel.

James

PS I don't own an anorak.

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Larrau.jpg

[David E. Belcher]

"W K" > wrote in message >...
> > Maybe. He's intelligent enough to see the joke, but has a rather primitive
> sense of humour that lets him carry on and on with such things.
>
> In the Times a couple of weeks ago he was on about yob culture in britain
> and how people have stupid hair cuts.

Clarkson criticising other peoples' haircuts? Bit rich if you ask me -
the words "pot" and "kettle" spring to mind [1]....

David E. Belcher

[1] I seem to recall Radio 4's 'The Now Show' referring to Clarkson as
"a poodle-haired gimp" a while ago.

[David E. Belcher]

James Hodson > wrote in message >...

> Some time ago the publishers of the Thomas the Tank Engine stories
> tried to sue a bunch of steam locomotive reconditoners because they'd
> named one of their locos "Stepney" as in "Stepney the Bluebell
> Engine".
>
> They'd failed to recognize that there was a loco called Stepney that
> used to operate between the mainland and Hayling Island.
>

Which, of course, inspired the book anyway - Rev. Awdry knew a thing
or two about railways, and though intended for kids, his books were
well-researched. Doesn't sound as though the folks at the publishing
firm were quite as knowledgeable!

David E. Belcher

[wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX]

>David E. Belcher
>
>[1] I seem to recall Radio 4's 'The Now Show' referring to Clarkson as
>"a poodle-haired gimp" a while ago.
>

My favourite description of him is the "woolly-haired w*nker"

Cheers, helen s


~~~~~~~~~~
This is sent from a redundant email
Mail sent to it is dumped
My correct one can be gleaned from
h$**$*$el$**e$n$**$d$**$o$*$t**$$s$**$im$mo$ns*@a$ **o$l.c$$*o$*m*$
by getting rid of the overdependence on money and fame
~~~~~~~~~~

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

in article , David E. Belcher
at wrote on 19/7/2003 11:03 am:

>> Some time ago the publishers of the Thomas the Tank Engine stories
>> tried to sue a bunch of steam locomotive reconditoners because they'd
>> named one of their locos "Stepney" as in "Stepney the Bluebell
>> Engine".

Maybe they'll have a go at Tony Marchington next for calling his engine
Flying Scotsman after an engine which appears in one of the Awdry books.

Guy

[Andrew Chadwick]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:52:28 +0100, Andy Dingley >
wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:24:07 +0100, "Not me, someone else"
> > wrote:
>
>> I certainly can't remember seeing a submarine being driven up our road
>> recently .. and I *do* think I'd remember it if I had .. ;)
>
> Joy riders. Always a problem with subs.
> http://www.submarine-history.com/NOVAalbacore2.jpg
> http://www.submarine-history.com/NOVAalbacore1.jpg
>
> (From http://www.submarine-history.com/NOVAfour.htm )

Reminds me of these links I had squirrelled away:

http://www.zeitcom.com/majgen/62ogress.html
http://www.zeitcom.com/majgen/67torpedo.html (nearly back on topic)

(From http://www.zeitcom.com/majgen/60lshp.html - more geeky silliness)

--
Andrew Chadwick
<We're all in this together>