Trained as pway, actually guarding a hoard of equipment, pushing trolleys around, and digging holes
Interested in rail infrastructure, photography, design, swords, and dragons
Speaks English, some Norwegian, a little French
Fedi since 2021
We're getting there 
| Location | West Yorkshire, UK |
| Favourite fastening | PR401 |
Actual GSM-R panel that this guy's somehow acquired, reverse engineered, and made to work with TSW6. Pretty cool, but makes me ask questions I probably don't want the answers to.
I'm sure that Scotrail didn't intend for the lightning bolt on the side of the (genai) train to resemble a fascist symbol, but the problem with using a plagiarism blender is that you have absolutely no idea where it's nicking stuff from.
The Nazis thoroughly misappropriated the ᛋ rune, both for the SS, and also for the Hitler Youth, and the emblem here is at least reminiscent of the emblem of the SA, the proscribed neo-nazi group National Action, and that of the British Union of Fascists.
There's going to be enough imagery around and enough fed into the model and associated with lightning bolts that no matter the intention, it seems fairly probable to me that this is indeed partly based on nazi symbols.
I'm also not sure that you really deserve the benefit of the doubt on that point at least when you're using something which very much by design conceals the specific source material used.
TPWS can enforce permanent speed restrictions, buffer stops, conditionally enforce speed towards signals at danger, and intervene if a train passes a signal at danger, but this intervention can only happen at the exact moment a train passes over a TPWS installation.
Intermittent communication, intermittent supervision, only two outcomes at each encounter with track installations – intervene, don't intervene.
BR's ATP offered intermittent communication but constant supervision, but that system was only installed on two main lines or so, and was later removed from the Chiltern. It's only now with the (somewhat slow) introduction of ETCS that constant supervision is being introduced more widely in GB.
Also should be said that TPWS ("Train Protection and Warning System") is called that because the idea was that the new installations provided the TP, and the existing AWS provided the W.
Maybe a bit cynical but imo the idea here was to pretend that this was all part of a more comprehensive and planned system than it actually was. Sort of like calling the Channel Tunnel Rail Link "HS1".
In reality, what happened is that people kept on referring to AWS as AWS, and the new installations were referred to as TPWS, and that's now official practice.
The Railway Safety Regulations introduced in 1999 made train protection (defined in 2) mandatory (the timescale is in 3).
If you look at the definition of train protection, you'll notice that it bears a suspicious resemblance to TPWS, a system introduced by Railtrack in the late 90s which meets the absolute bare minimum of the criteria, and isn't anywhere near as comprehensive as BR's existing ATP system, which was deemed too expensive to roll out nationally.
Railway Safety and Standards Board now have an AI chatbot built into their website.
Totally unacceptable to have something which generates credible-seeming bollocks on the website of an organisation responsible for railway safety.
