I agree with everything Bob says. Incidentally, when I next go to Wales it'll be the fourth time my ticket will be partly funded by vouchers as each of the previous times I've been delayed by over an hour - and under the conditions of carriage (at least of Arriva), that entitles you to vouchers worth 50% of your return fare, or 100% of a single fare.

It's worth complaining, folks .

quote:

I find the ticket booking and pricing highly vexing ...

I do too. I can cope with there being different rates according to the time of travel, route and how far in advance you book, but it gets really complicated trying to work it all out. I've often spent half an hour talking to a clerk in my local station information office while we try to work out what would be the best and cheapest deal for me. I've found them all to be extremely helpful and very patient.

When I was in the Royal Air Force, I was stationed in Bedfordshire (in the south east of England) in 1971. I'd got a weekend pass and gone up north to stay with my then fiance and his family because it was his 21st birthday. He'd gone back to his base just outside Lincoln and I carried on down to London to catch my connection back to my own billet. Unfortunately, things did not go as planned. The train to London was very late and, by the time I'd taken the Tube (Subway) across London to catch my connection (the last train back), I'd missed it by half an hour. So there I was, stuck on Euston Station in the middle of the night, when I had to be on duty at 8 am the next morning. I passed the time playing cards with a group of soldiers who'd also missed their train. I buttonholed a member of staff when he came past at around 4 am and explained my situation. He told me that there was a train which stopped at my station at 5 am, but it wasn't a passenger train. He said, however, that if I kept my head down and didn't let anyone see me, he'd get me on it - which he did. So there I was an hour later at 6 am, on Leighton Buzzard station platform, in thick fog, three miles from base. There was a public phone box on the platform and I had just enough change to ring the base, who sent a driver for me. I just had time to get back to my room, get changed into my uniform and report for duty (no sleep). I got called up before the Sergeant and confined to barracks for a week for that - despite it not being my fault .

quote:

The National Coach Service is equely slick in it's opperation and extreemly good value. It is much slower than rail however.

I've also used National Express several times and find them very good. Unfortunately, as you said, it's much slower than trains. The last journey I made was at the end of February this year, from Heathrow Airport. The weather was horrible, planes had to circle for over 20 minutes before they could land and by the time I'd queued to have my papers processed (together with several hundred other passengers from all the other late planes), found and retrieved my luggage and got out of the terminal, I'd missed the coach I was supposed to have caught. I managed to get my tickets changed for a seat on the next coach - two hours later - and sat in the squalid cafe and then the overcrowded, draughty, waiting room with lots of birds flying around in it (Heathrow bus station is not one of the loveliest places on Earth ) making a couple of coffees last as long as I could.

quote:

that the little used but comfortable routes become less cost effective and are cut while the greatly overused but horrible ones are profitable and kept

Interestingly, although most people don't realise it, the overcrowded commuter services are not usually profitable and most are subsidised from central funds. This seems surprising to those who have to stand all the way from Woking to Waterloo but what they don't appreciate is that, apart from around four hours in every 24 and on 5 days out of seven, the trains are almost empty.

So this special rolling stock, expensively made with around three times as many doors as long-distance trains to allow for rapid passenger entry and exit, is almost unused for getting on for 90% of the time. The train crew, too, are not being productive for much of the time - but are needed to cope with the peak traffic.

Normal long distance services have a much more even loading and are probably getting a utilisation of approaching 50% - along with their crew.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:

quote:

that the little used but comfortable routes become less cost effective and are cut while the greatly overused but horrible ones are profitable and kept

Interestingly, although most people don't realise it, the overcrowded commuter services are not usually profitable and most are subsidised from central funds. This seems surprising to those who have to stand all the way from Woking to Waterloo but what they don't appreciate is that, apart from around four hours in every 24 and on 5 days out of seven, the trains are almost empty.

So this special rolling stock, expensively made with around three times as many doors as long-distance trains to allow for rapid passenger entry and exit, is almost unused for getting on for 90% of the time. The train crew, too, are not being productive for much of the time - but are needed to cope with the peak traffic.

Normal long distance services have a much more even loading and are probably getting a utilisation of approaching 50% - along with their crew.

You make my case about commercial imperatives being incompatible with a public transport service for me.
The trains should be subsidised from public funds and run as a not for profit institution and the decision to keep services open or axe them should NOT be made on commercial grounds.

quote:

You make my case about commercial imperatives being incompatible with a public transport service for me.

The trains should be subsidised from public funds and run as a not for profit institution and the decision to keep services open or axe them should NOT be made on commercial grounds.

I agree. My ex husband's last posting before he came out of the RAF in 1977 was to an airbase near Louth in Lincolnshire (in the east of England).

There had been a small railway station about half a mile from the base and a larger one in Louth itself (about 9 miles away). These had been shut down at the end of the 60s, the tracks had been ripped up, the station buildings demolished and housing estates built on the sites. There had been a bus service to Market Rasen (about six miles away), but that had fizzled out after a few months and the nearest accessible railway station when we were there was at Grimsby - 25 miles and two bus journeys away!

We used to go hiking in the Yorkshire Moors and the Lake District and there were many small communities which had all but died because their rail links had been cut and the roads were almost impassible in the winter. We went on the Settle Carlisle Railway, which had been threatened with closure on several occasions - mainly because of the condition of the imposing Ribblehead Viaduct (a really spectacular photo) - an amazing feat of Victorian engineering which, because of the boggy ground in the area, is built on bales of wool.

Apparently, there was evidence of a deliberate campaign of neglect on the part of British Rail in order to justify closure but, fortunately, the line has been not only saved, but the viaduct has been renovated and the line is "busier than ever".

I've been along it and I can say, from personal experience, that it is well worth the trip.

Addition: I haven't been able to find a follow up article about this.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Dianthus,

quote:

I haven't been able to find a follow up article about this.

The project has a Web site at The A1 Steam Locomotive Trust. According to a newsletter available in PDF format from their site they are hoping to raise steam for the first time in 2007 and start mainline journeys in 2008, provided a recent bond issue is successful.

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:

quote:

I haven't been able to find a follow up article about this.

The project has a Web site at The A1 Steam Locomotive Trust. According to a newsletter available in PDF format from their site they are hoping to raise steam for the first time in 2007 and start mainline journeys in 2008, provided a recent bond issue is successful.

Ah, thanks . If I'd still been living in Peterborough, I could have stood by the line to watch it go by (the line was less than half a mile away from where I lived). I used to take the kids to watch the trains go by from the footbridge and we were lucky enough to see the Flying Scotsman once.

In fact the problem of commercialisation didn't happen when the railways were privatised. Since privatisation there have been more lines opened than were ever opened during the fifty or so years of nationalisation.

The major rail closures took place in the 1960s during the period of the nationalised system, when Lord Beeching was charged with the task of making the railways pay and part of his strategy was to close all the non-profitable lines. This didn't work, of course, since closing the non-profitable feeder lines meant that the loading onto the main lines was lower and so their revenue dropped, effectively wiping out the savings.

I was initially not convinced of the superiority of either system of ownership but I can now say that I have seen more improvements in the railways in the past ten years than in any other ten-year period within my memory. I have not seen any evidence of Government investment in the railways that has matched that of the better private owners. Virgin Trains are now using tilt technology to allow higher speeds on standard tracks (and it works very well, I know from experience). Virgin invested many millions in their Pendolino stock but, sadly the trains come from Italy. Britain's pioneering tilting train, the APT, now languishes in a siding in Crewe as the Pendolinos speed by. And why? Because the Government pulled the funding on the project and, because they owned the railways, that was the end of our prioneering work.

Quite frankly I have to say that I have never seen any Government project work very well; private enterprise, profit motive notwithstanding, always does better. I am happy to be corrected but I doubt I will be. Government ownership and subsidy is a recipe for disaster (I once was a LearnDirect tutor and that particular Government-backed setup is a complete disaster, good only at wasting our money).

Since privatisation there are now more cross-country routes than at any time since before the second World War; there has been more new rolling stock introduced and the on-board service, even on commuter routes, is better than it was a few years ago. Passenger PA announcements; trolley meal services and on-board hostesses - none of these existed ten years ago; now they are common.

Richard, you must let me know which rail network it is you use. It sounds so much better than the one I have to rely on.

quote:

Virgin invested many millions in their Pendolino stock but, sadly the trains come from Italy. Britain's pioneering tilting train, the APT, now languishes in a siding in Crewe as the Pendolinos speed by. And why? Because the Government pulled the funding on the project and, because they owned the railways, that was the end of our prioneering work.

I remember the ill-fated APT. Successive governments screwed up the railways. Ernest Marples (Beeching's boss) had, literally, a vested interest in road building because of his associations with a construction company and Maggie Thatcher hated trains and decided to finish off what he and Beeching had started. Then there was all the hysteria after a couple of high profile crashes a few years ago which led to trains being restricted to a top speed of around 50 mph (less than a car on a main road - not even a motorway). It's a wonder we have any railways left at all .

quote:

Since privatisation there are now more cross-country routes than at any time since before the second World War; there has been more new rolling stock introduced and the on-board service, even on commuter routes, is better than it was a few years ago. Passenger PA announcements; trolley meal services and on-board hostesses - none of these existed ten years ago; now they are common.

I agree with that. I have a friend who is disabled and we travelled on a train a couple of months ago (only a local journey, about 30 minutes). She uses a walking frame to get around and we had a bit of trouble getting it onto the train. I had to get on first and lift it on and we had to ask one of our fellow passengers to help her on while I folded it up (and the same when we got off). However, when we were on the train, there was a row of sideways-facing folding seats by the door and, had she been in a wheelchair, she could have tucked it into that space (the door was rather narrow to accommodate a wheelchair, but it might just have scraped through). The modern electrically-operated doors are much better than the heavy old ones that you had to lean out of the windows to open.

I have to agree with Richard in theory. I think that a freemarket system without monopolies will generally provide better service and products. However, the rail system in your country sounds like it's a monopoly, much like our gas company and our water company. I've recently had dealings with both of those [sarcasm]FINE public utilities and let me tell you, what a joy![/sarcasm] They see no need to provide good customer service because we have no other option than to buy gas and water from them.

No, it isn't a monopoly. The technical term for what it is, is a dogs' breakfast. There are dozens of companies running the services, the track maintenance and the stations not to mention the on train services.

I won't go into too much detail but I once tried to claim back some money for a service that made me miss a day out that I had already paid for and found that Central Trains (a local company) blamed Virgin Trains (a national company) who blaimed Railtrack (in charge of the track) who blamed Central Trains...

Weeks of letters got me a "good will voucher" from Virgin (without admission of liability) which didn't cover the cost of the stamps and was only valid on services I had no need to use anyway.

Richard's rhapsodies notwithstanding the situation is that we have a "service" which has a captive customer base who cannot practically take their custom elsewhere combined with a highly variable set of profit margins (some trains massively overcrowded, some trains running empty). In that circumstance the shareholder profit is maximised by cutting the services that run empty or - more to the point if you use them yourself - <i>nearly</i> empty.

As soon as you put the shareholders in the picture the decline of the less well used services becomes inevitable with a concommitant additional load on the better used services.

Yes it was bad - through Government mismanagement - as a public utility, but it cannot mathematically be better as a set of private companies when the primary objective is to make money.

Yes, and although there are many different companies running the actual trains, giving an illusion of consumer choice, usually only one company will run a particular route (for example, Birmingham-Aberystwyth is now I believe in the sole charge of Arriva Trains Wales/Trenau Arriva Cymru - there are plenty of other examples). So the illusion of choice is just that. You can't avoid a particular train company if they run the route you have to take, so you have to put up with what they offer or choose not to travel - which is often not possible.

Interestingly, I don't understand why the government sold off the railways and then continued to pump loads of money into what is now supposed to be a private company, to bail them out. Does this mean I can set up my own business, mismanage it dreadfully, then go crawling to Tory Blair for a handout when it all goes wrong?

Yes, I'm sure there are reasons for it, but surely the rail service should either be privatised or nationalised - not some weird hybrid.

quote:

I won't go into too much detail but I once tried to claim back some money for a service that made me miss a day out that I had already paid for and found that Central Trains (a local company) blamed Virgin Trains (a national company) who blaimed Railtrack (in charge of the track) who blamed Central Trains...

When my commuter train is late or when the tollways are all torn up with only one-lane of traffic going 20 mph (because of construction), I always have the urge to make a huge scene and refuse to pay. Yet, dutifully I pay and go on.

quote:

So the illusion of choice is just that. You can't avoid a particular train company if they run the route you have to take, so you have to put up with what they offer or choose not to travel - which is often not possible.

So it's not really a monopoly, but for all intents and purposes it might as well be. That's what I mean. What's the point of pretending they don't have you captive? They do! And to make it all about profit means that they not only have you over a barrel, but that they have you caught in all sorts of other uncomfortable positions, as well.

I fear there is much misinformation here yet again.

First the monopoly. There are certainly routes on which there is no competition (although anyone who wants to set up a competing service can apply for a licence to do so). However, there is quite a lot of competition on some routes as opposed to zero in the days of British Rail. As Cat knows very well, there are three rail companies operating from Birmingham to London, each charging different fares. Similarly on the route from Gatwick airport to London there are three different rail companies, all offering different levels of service and different fares. It is quite unfair to cite an instance of monopoly and suggest that this represents the totality of the situation. And, of course, never forget that the trains are in competition with buses, airlines and the private car as well.

Bob says, "...As soon as you put the shareholders in the picture the decline of the less well used services becomes inevitable with a concommitant additional load on the better used services..." and I agree that this would seem obvious. Except it hasn't happened. There are now more services, more lines and more stations than there were in the last days of nationalisation. Apart from the hiatus after the Hatfield crash, rail speeds have been steadily getting faster and we now have several stretches of 150 mph track.

The cheapest of the three, South Central Trains, is the one I usually use and, to answer Bob's point, it now has new air-conditioned rolling stock and a trolley service of drinks an light refreshments. I have recently travelled with Virgin, Thames Trains, Thameslink and Midland Mainline. All journeys have been fine although my trip to Derby with Midland Mainline was delayed for about 30 minutes due to flooding of the track caused by torrential rain (that closed the main road as well). Virgin's service was the best with my return ticket from Redhill to Bury costing me about £45 for a round trip of about 600 miles (try beating that in a car - you wouldn't get halfway for that amount of petrol). The main leg of the journey - from London to Manchester - was timed at 2 hours and 19 minutes and actually took just over 2 hours. I was able to have a snack at my seat, served by the attendant, washed down with a can of London Pride. Quite frankly I found nothing at all to fault.

Cat says "...Interestingly, I don't understand why the government sold off the railways and then continued to pump loads of money into what is now supposed to be a private company, to bail them out...." All railways, everywhere in the world, receive massive subsidy - even in the USA, that bastion of the market economy. They are not unique in that: educational establishments are subsidised; farmers are subsidised; art galleries and museums are subsidised - except nobody seems to moan about that. The alternative would be to withdraw the subsidy and the companies would then close and we'd have no railways, no art galleries and no museums. The subsidies that the railways of Britain receive are some of the lowest in the world and it is quite unfair and inaccurate to say that they are badly mismanaged. Like the gas, water and electricity companies the railways do a difficult job very well, with many people, especially in commuter areas, building their life around the railway's services. But as I say, it is fashionable to talk about our "third world" railways and or "crumbling public transport". It is not true and I would like some of those who write this sort of nonsense to be sentenced to a spell using Japan's commuter railways, or trying to get around Los Angeles using public transport. They would be mighty glad to get back to the UK!

Unlike almost any other organisation I know, the rail companies are very good at dealing with complaints and I have had, over the past forty years, a 100% response to my letters. And if I have a valid complaint (say the advertised first class accommodation is not provided) then I get an immediate refund, usually with a bit extra on top. OK, it comes as travel vouchers but I travel by train so much that I soon find a use for them.

Caterwauler says "...However, the rail system in your country sounds like it's a monopoly, much like our gas company and our water company..." Since our utilities were privatised, telephone, gas and electricity prices have all come down. I have changed my suppliers several times to chase the best rates and I recommend to all who've not done so to try it. It's really very easy and you can save a lot of cash. The water companies still enjoy a monopoly which is why, I suspect, that water has become much dearer at a time when other utilities are getting cheaper.

Japan has had to add a number of female only carriages to their commuter services to counter the groping problem.
Water companies are faced with ever more stringent legislation for quality of supply and discharge. Other utilities have thus far only been forced to talk about curtailing CO2 emmissions. The raw material is also sometimes in short supply without the option of OPEC upping production. The infrastucture is elderly in some places. On the whole for the amount of work involved water is good value.

quote:

On the whole for the amount of work involved water is good value.

I didn't say water wasn't good value but it has become much more expensive over the past ten years, whereas power and telephony has become much cheaper.

That might have nothing with competition versus monopoly but it's a suspicious coincidence.

As Cat knows very well, there are three rail companies operating from Birmingham to London, each charging different fares.

Which is why in my post I put the word usually, Richard . I know full well that there are pockets of several services to the same destination - and thank God for Chiltern: to go by Virgin to London, unless you book several days/weeks in advance (and very rarely do I know exactly what time I'll be coming back) you can end up being charged around £100 for a seat that cost someone else in the same carriage a third of the price (I've just checked qjump.co.uk for ticket prices on that route tomorrow and a saver return is £33 while a standard return is £100 - both for the same off-peak journey. Chiltern do a flat rate of about £25, to a nicer part of London and on a prettier route too ). Anyway, my point was that this isn't always the case, so some travellers don't have the option of going with the company who provides cheaper fares. Who's the third one, by the way? Silverlink? I thought they only went part of the way now?

I still think that Bob was spot on when he said that everyone is right: our rail system is by far not the worst around, but neither is it one of the best.

educational establishments are subsidised; farmers are subsidised; art galleries and museums are subsidised - except nobody seems to moan about that.

Actually, people do moan about the issues surrounding farmer subsidies: go to a discussion on environmental / development issues and it'll come up. And education and museums are subidised I thought in order for them to be free for all to enjoy, thus discouraging elitism and enabling access for people from all walks of life. And yes, rail subsidies may prevent huge price hikes, but something as necessary as public transport shouldn't be run for profit in the first place. It should be nationalised but taken better care of.

Incidentally, I saw a newspaper headline the other day with the words "We British" on it. Made me smile, anyway

quote:

but something as necessary as public transport shouldn't be run for profit in the first place. It should be nationalised but taken better care of.

That is the usual dogma of the socialist/communist ethic and I have to say that, in my heart, I agree with it. The trouble is, it doesn't work. Every worthwhile enterprise has been started by capitalists to make money; I can't think of a single enterprise started as a "communist" venture that has worked. The railways were all started as moneymaking ventures and were not nationalised until 100 years after they were invented. Fifty years after they were nationalised (and after 50 years of zero improvement and massive closures) they were privatised and few will disagree that they have generally improved.

So far as the fares "anomoly" is concerned: either you have variable fares or you have fare-fixing - as was once the case with many transport undertakings. Which would you prefer - fares fixed so all have to pay the standard high prices or fare competition so you have a chance of getting a lower price? You can't have both, you know.

Is it really the case of the two extremes? Can there not be a compromise of standard fixed mid-range fares? Means-tested prices would be the farest (sorry ). In fact, doing away with money altogether would... ah, but I digress. Again.

Yeah, I agree about Communism not working in practice, but I think most of the time it's because the leaders have had far-right leanings and have corrupted Socialist principles for their own ends, pretending to be left-wing when they're anything but. It's like religious leaders who ignore the true divine teachings and advocate violence and murder, which then leads to people thinking the religion itself is murderous, rather than that it's been corrupted by a few evil humans.

Hope that wasn't too ineloquent. I'm tired today.

quote:

Can there not be a compromise of standard fixed mid-range fares?

Well, there could be but then who would decide on what's a fair fare? Is it to make a profit or not? If not, then it has to be paid from central funding as we have already discussed. And fares fixed across the range of services means that there is no incentive for those who can to travel outside of peak times and thus peak-time overcrowding gets worse.

Pricing of fares to maximise load factors is an extraordinarily complex science and it's small wonder that those who are not privy to its workings find it incomprehensible. Never forget, a seat on a 'bus, train or aeroplane is the most perishable commodity there is and it is every tranport undertaking's dream to get a load factor of around 99% (not 100% since that means you might have left some passengers behind).

I could go on at length since this is a topic I know well - but this is, after all, a word board.

Mind you, I suppose such terms as "load factor", "break-even load factor"; "occupancy rate"; "empty leg"; "bed-nights" and many others relating to pricing that we bandy about in the travel business, are in themselves interesting.

i don't know if it's been mentioned before, but the highlight of the david letterman show is a game called 'will it float?'. part of the shtick of this farcical piece of entertainment is the line, 'and now folks it's time to play 'will it float?', or as it's known in britian, 'is it buoyant?'

that is symbolic of (symbolizes?) the respective national psyches brilliantly, imho.

quote:

'and now folks it's time to play 'will it float?', or as it's known in britian, 'is it buoyant?'

I don't know what this says about national psyches, but as a pedant I would say that the two phrases don't mean the same thing at all.

"Is it buoyant?" is a question about an item's characteristics. "Will it float?" is a question about its possible behaviour.

A thing that is buoyant might float, but doesn't have to.

An analogy might be to describe a person by saying "Is it a woman?" which tells us about the sex and possible behaviour of the person. However the question, "Will she have children?" is a question that seeks quite different information. Again, the first is about characteristis, the second, behaviour.

<seriously-confused-by-Richard's-post icon>

yes, mr english, i realise that the terms are very much different in their intent. that's the point; americans enquire 'what will it do (for me)?', while british journey along the lines of the more direct 'what is its attribute (of my object)?'. It demonstrates two very different forms of possession by the speaker when directly addressing the object of their attention. in australia, i guess we would ask 'does it float?', thus observing both our u.s. and british ties simultaneously.

as a pedant, does my lack of capitalisation bother you?

btw, i found this english-slang-explained-for-americans site. now why don't we have one word for that?

http://www.effingpot.com/slang.shtml

beans

My point is that, in England, we would use both phrases, depending on what shade of meaning we wanted to convey. It's not a question of behavioural characteristics but of accuracy in communication. That some nations might prefer one style to another is possible although I wouldn't care to express an opinion as to the truth of that.

quote:

as a pedant, does my lack of capitalisation bother you?

Yes. Sentences without capitals (like sentences without lower case) are more difficult to read - which is why upper and lower case script was invented. I also think it's unecessary to omit capitals on a board such as this since capitalisation using a normal keyboard is simple.

There is some justification for using lower case only when texting (as there is for using abbreviations) since the deficiencies of the telephone keypad as an input device encourage the use of such shortcuts for the sake of speed.

In normal writing, with pen or keyboard I see no necessity for "txtspk".

The world is confusing enough without adding to its compexity by the excessive use of jargon and abbreviation.

quote:

Yes. Sentences without capitals (like sentences without lower case) are more difficult to read - which is why upper and lower case script was invented. I also think it's unecessary to omit capitals on a board such as this since capitalisation using a normal keyboard is simple.

Interesting, Richard. Remember wildflowerchild? She often didn't use capitalizations, and that seemed to be fine with you. In fact, you supported her when another poster objected, if I recall accurately.

Beans, I loved the site you posted...and it is so timely. I am currently doing the word a day on the Wordcraftjr site, and I need a few more words. Your site was so helpful!

I think you are splitting hairs, Richard. Dictionaries define "buoyancy" as AHD does, "The tendency or capacity to remain afloat in a liquid or rise in air or gas." The OED online says: "1. a. Power of floating (on liquid or fluid); tendency to float."

I remember wfc very well and I remember defending her postings - although it was their content that a certain person was objecting to, not their capitalisation or lack thereof, as I recall.

I would have said nothing about Beans's choice of writing had I not been asked; having been asked I expressed my opinion.

I agree that it is a fine distinction between "Is it bouyant" and "does i float" - but distinction there is. As you say, the dictionary definition of bouyancy is "..."The tendency or capacity to remain afloat in a liquid or rise in air or gas." The OED online says: "1. a. Power of floating (on liquid or fluid); tendency to float."..." and each of those definitions uses the modifier "tendency", In other words, it is likely to float.

That does not mean it will always float. The Titanic was buoyant but failed to float and there are plenty of other examples.

"Is it bouyant" means "does it have a tendency to float"; "does it float" means does it, really and truly, float. A nice dictinction but still a distinction.

Do you thimk perhaps you may be getting a little bogged down in the physics when I'm pretty sure the original question was regarding a metaphorical usage of the phrases?

Possibly. But my point was that the two phrases don't mean the same thing - and the implication by the programme's presenter was that they do.

quote:

I would have said nothing about Beans's choice of writing had I not been asked; having been asked I expressed my opinion.

Yes, I do realize that, Richard. However, my recollection of wildflowerchild was that one poster made public the fact that he didn't think she should be posting on a board about language when, in his opinion, she wasn't using correct writing mechanics. The rest of us (including you) disagreed with him, and we all very much liked wildflowerchild and still miss her. I thought the dispute was only about mechanics, and not about content. Again, it was a while ago, and I may be misremembering. Here is an example of a post by wildflowerchild.

Do you thimk perhaps you may be getting a little bogged down in the physics
I suppose, but now I am interested in the difference between "buoyancy" and "floating!"

That does not mean it will always float. The Titanic was buoyant but failed to float and there are plenty of other examples.

So tell me, Richard, was the Titanic "buoyant" the day it sunk? I think not!

quote:

I thought the dispute was only about mechanics, and not about content.

My recollection was that the argument was about a dubious joke that wfc posted, to do with an Irish woman.

quote:

I suppose, but now I am interested in the difference between "buoyancy" and "floating!"

Buoyancy means it is capable of floating; floating means it is floating. The Titanic was buoyant until it was holed and then it lost its buoyancy. Any buoyant object will fail to float if the downthrust of its weight exceeds the upthrust of its displacement.

So buoyancy is a characteristic; floating is a condition.

"It floats!" probably sold more soap than "It's bouyant" would have.

Yes, Jerry, I agree. I still like Ivory because it floats...and because it is 99.44% pure!

quote:

Any buoyant object will fail to float if the downthrust of its weight exceeds the upthrust of its displacement.

I know that we are getting into semantics, but it seems to me that if it fails to float, it can no longer be described as "buoyant." But, I guess I know what you mean. (That literalism part of me always holds me back! )

Maybe the .56 per cent impurity is the air that helps the buoyant soap to overcome the downward thrust of its weight and gives its displacement an upthrust, hence the behavior that inspires comments such as "It floats!"

Does that float your boat?

quote:

I know that we are getting into semantics, but it seems to me that if it fails to float, it can no longer be described as "buoyant.

If it's bouyant it will have a tendency to float. But if there's enough weight on it then, no matter how buoyant it is, it will fail to float.

Floating is an absolute fact; buoyancy is a characteristic and one which can vary. A steel screw is buoyant in mercury but not water. This it it can be considered buoyant in some circumstances. But it floats in mercury (absolute) and it doesn't float in water (also absolute)

buoyancy: Heard this one. Google indicates its from the 1940s radio program "The Bickersons;" I've revised slightly.

When a middle aged couple moves into a new home, he rebuffs her wish that he carry her over the threshold.
She: You're not as gallant as you were when I was a gal.
He: You're not as buoyant as you were when I was a boy.

I appreciate the detail of your response, Mr. English. I certainly agree with you that the two words have different meanings, and have not claimed otherwise. It is the nuance of their difference that was, indeed, the topic of the post. And I must ask you, Mr. English; do you consider your prose to be 'purely' English and not coloured by your cultures both personal and social?

All cats are feline, but is all that floats buoyant? Consider a small stone that has an displacement that is technically insufficient for it to float, yet can float on the surface tension of still water because of it's size. The floating stone can be said to be not buoyant. Thus, they are different in their application.

with you all the way, dick.

beans

quote:

I certainly agree with you that the two words have different meanings, and have not claimed otherwise. It is the nuance of their difference that was, indeed, the topic of the post.

Beans, it was I who muddled this thread, not Richard. You are correct; you had asked about the nuance of the difference, and not the difference in the definitions of "float" and "buoyant." 'Twas my fault for getting us off subject. Sorry!

I will be honest, though, I don't agree with you or Richard that there is a difference in definition between "float" and "buoyant." I think an article is no longer "buoyant" when it doesn't float.

So you believe it to be a tautology, like 'all cats are feline', Kalleh? I s'pose the words could have come from two distinct backgrounds and so have identical meaning (cat and feline), but I'm backing that they are different words and so have different nuances. I'm guessing, but; the ingots of a steel ship's hull will not float until they are made ship shaped, thus acquiring buoyancy. It will float because it now possesses buoyancy. It would not float when it didn't possess buoyancy, even though it is the same metal. Some background into both words might help.

beans

ps: Richard did too start it!

Yes, Beans, a little background into "float" and "buoyant" may help. Etymology online says this about "buoyant:" "1578, perhaps from Sp. boyante, prp. of boyar "to float," from boya "buoy," from Du. boei (see buoy). Of personalities, etc., from c.1748." That site says that "buoyant" came from a word meaning "to float."

The word "float" seems to be older (1100), and here is what the OED online says about the etymology of "float:" "OE. flotian = MDu. vlôten, ON. flota:OTeut. *flotôjan, f. *flot- weak grade of root of *fleutan to float or flow" So it apparently comes from the word "flow."

I am not saying that the words are pure synonyms, Beans, but I do think they are intricately related. If you don't build your boat to be buoyant, it won't float. If you do, it will.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

quote:

All cats are feline, but is all that floats buoyant?

Quite so. The party trick with the needle, the cigarette paper and the glass of water prove beyond doubt that an item not technically buoyant can float and it is a matter of common observation that normally bouyant objects, on occasions, do not float.

quote:

..."Northerners" - and by that I mean anyone north of Coventry, seem to be preoccupied by what we Southerners think of them and many appear to have an idea that we denigrate them and feel they're stupid...

This is the same everywhere. Nothing special about the UK. Anyone who has not done so should watch the PBS series "Do You Speak American?," or the older one, "American Tongues," for documentation of some Americans thinking others are stupid because of their accents. Human beings used language as a key marker of group membership, and anyone not in one's own group is automatically labeled inferior: basic sociolinguistic fact.

Beth J

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Yes, Jerry, I agree. I still like Ivory because it floats...and because it is 99.44% pure!

One has to wonder what might have happened if truth in advertising regulations were as stringent way back when as they are today. How appealing would a soap be if its lable proclaimed, "0.56% rat hairs and rodent droppings"?

Well, if you think about it, that could be true with the 99.44% pure assertion. After all, the other .56% could be rat hairs and rodent droppings!

[Remind me not to buy Ivory soap anymore! ]

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh (May 11, 2005): I don't think I have ever heard "demonym" before.

From the Mike Mailway (L. M. Boyd) trivia archives:

quote:

Demonym update: Thanks to Paul Paquet of Ottawa, Ontario, who let us know his favorite term for the resident of a place: Nauruan, a resident of the South Pacific island nation of Nauru. Why? It's the only demonym that's a palindrome, spelled the same backward and forward.

Tinman

Re: Us Yanks
It de-pends on how it is used. If it is the subject of the sentence we should use "we." "We Yanks are going to the store."
If it is an object, then we use "us." "Give the ball to us Yanks."

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
The party trick with the needle, the cigarette paper and the glass of water prove beyond doubt that an item not technically buoyant can float and it is a matter of common observation that normally bouyant objects, on occasions, do not float.

That's no more floating than is sitting at your desk. Surface tension suspends the needle.

As for Ivory soap, repunctuating tells the tale: That's 99 and 44/100% P-U, R.E!

I don't really want to delve back into a discussion that, after over a year, I've almost forgotten. But it seems to me that the OED definition of bouyancy does not preclude the action of surface tension. Whether the object floats because it is able to displace enough fluid to support itself, or that it is supported by surface tension, it is still floating on a liquid.