En el artículo , Dave Plowman (News) escribió:
Aye, and a driver means human error. Which is what I think happened at Croydon.
Had to smile at the suggestion of driverless trams. The carnage in Market Street in Manchester would be massive. Peds wander all over the tram tracks, nose glued to their wankerphone, tinny crap blasting out of their earbuds, oblivious to the 300 tons of metal bearing down on them.
Eh? The actual rails are replaced on an as needed basis.
It's the land needed for a totally new route which is going to cost a vast amount of money.
It seems likely.
Same as in Croydon, then.
Some on here think auto systems must by nature be foolproof. I'm of the view that computer control would be a instant challenge for a hacker. Let alone being far less reliable than drivers.
When it was a railway, and now again that it is a tramway that would take place as they get worn,
What I'm trying to get across it that the way you wrote utilising "old railway track" makes it sound like the trams started to use the old rails that the trains ran along . That happened in Manchester'. it did not happen with the Croydon Tramlink where the old railway rails and sleepers were removed and replaced with new ones at the time of the conversion.
Agreed , but that land could have equally been an old canal ,a road ,trackway whatever .
Using the term "old railway track " rather than old railway formation or former railway route is a bit misleading in this case. The trams are not running on old railway track they are running on rails installed new at the time of conversion.
G.Harman
Of course. Maintenance.
In the case of this accident, I doubt it would have mattered much. It was the very sharp turn specifically for trams that caused the problem. It didn't jump off 'old' track originally laid for trains. And given how long it has been running, I'm not sure 'old' track wouldn't have been replaced by now anyway.
Not if it were going from Wimbledon to Croyden. ;-) The project relied on having the use of former railway routes. It would not have been viable without.
I'd guess you are the only one confused by it. ;-)
They probably don't go anywhere near as fast in Nottingham.
You watch too much hollywood stuff. Its quite a challenge to hack a system that isn't connected to anywhere the hacker can get to.
Are you really trying to tell me a new system installed now would be stand alone? How would they manage to boil a kettle for tea?
Just because a computer system, even with a local LAN, uses internet technology, there's no obligation for it to be connected to the Internet.
In message , at 09:39:58 on Sun, 13 Nov 2016, Tim Streater remarked:
That's very true. You can even apply for globally unique IP address allocations, despite not having any intention to connect to what's commonly understood by "The Internet".
(Or as the Americans call it "The Inner-net", and as they invented it perhaps we should pronounce it the same as they do. Admittedly we don't for the company whose founder calls it Micro-Saarrft).
You could, but why bother. Just use 10.x.x.x which is freely available, but which should NOT be connected to the Internet (everyone would just reject your traffic, anyway).
Are you for real? Do you really think they'd have their own LAN connection to all the other parts of TFL or whatever that would demand some form of access to it? And that all of those wouldn't have internet access either?
No reason at all that they couldn't have their own private network spanning London. They could just string fibre in the tunnels. At least for all operational network traffic, anyway.
IPv6 has worked for years, the difficulty was always getting commercial networks to route it natively. When I was still at work and involved in the connection of the network to the wider Internet, we'd buy service from the likes of Telia, usually five or so 2.5Gbps connections in different parts of Europe (and the same again from another provider).
They always told us there was no demand for v6 at that point, and there probably wasn't, with v4 addresses still being reasonably available.
And your problem with this concept is *what*, precisely?
British Rail have their own private network.
AS do most major corporates.
You can use any IP address you like if you are not connected to the internet or if your firewall blocks that range. The only up/down side is that those machines can't get to the real internet address.
You should be using IPv6 now it works.
Tracing route to google.com [2a00:1450:4009:80d::200e] over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 5 ms 5 ms 6 ms 2a02:c7f:b82a:f100::1 2 * * * Request timed out. 3 24 ms 15 ms 14 ms 2001:4860:1:1:0:15e7:0:8 4 15 ms 14 ms 16 ms 2001:4860:1:1:0:15e7:0:8 5 14 ms 15 ms 15 ms 2001:4860:0:1::104f 6 15 ms 13 ms 17 ms 2001:4860:0:1::1d89 7 15 ms 14 ms 13 ms lhr25s12-in-x0e.1e100.net [2a00:1450:4009:80d::200e]Trace complete.
If they did they would use VPN so the attack profile would be very limited.
They would use leased lines for stuff that they wanted to be extra secure. Or run their own WAN along the tracks!
British Rail had their own private network, it was flogged off at privatisation, bought back by Network Rail who are being pressured by the Treasury to sell it off again ...
Didn't realise it was so simple and cheap to protect from hacking. Have you guys passed your findings on to The Pentagon?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.