Possibly the tunnels, besides being narrower in width, have curves in them, and the carriages were too long to actually turn [safely] within the tunnels.

The solution was likely to switch to more, shorter carriages - or even taper the front and rear of the carriages. However it might have been that the tunnel was still too narrow and would affect the max speed of the train.

In the UK they have rebored tunnels that are too small for modern trains. https://www.railtechnologymaga...

Each year you get older is one year less of life to do stuff you really want to do.

If you want to travel or go hiking or do skiing or other sports, it's even less time, because physical health issues can occur early and put a stop to that.

And past 75 it doesn't look good, however much you try the odds will keep getting worse. Sure there's the odd 100 year old still running marathons, but they're the lucky ones (although I'm sure a healthy lifestyle helps, we're reading this here, the home of mountain dew aficionados back in the day). My dad got leg ulcers and that put a stop to his mobility due to the time they took to heal (given reoccurrences, etc). There's a lot of TV watching for him now. There's only so much anyone would want to do that.

So everyone really should value their time over their money the older you get. Even if you don't have a lot of money, there's a crossover period. You don't work and struggle until you die, you can at least just merely struggle for a while, and do free/cheap activities.

Alternatively the older workers won't need childcare days, health issues only really kick in post 60, their parents are dead so there's no bereavement leave periods, and the businesses actually need people who don't take shit because the right thing happens as a result. They will work for older businesses who need the skills these people have, the startups can work their graduates to the bone using the latest things.

Annuities aren't that generous either (getting a bit better with higher inflation / interest rates however).

Talk to a financial advisor, they will advise your pension is drawn down, whilst being invested in something like the S&P500, with a cash pot of two or three years to ride out downturns. You need to adapt, and remember the state pension will arrive at some point after 67. You might want to include more new-economy asian stuff in a modern portfolio, or have a global one, but you should aim to be able to live on 2.7% - 3.3% of your pension pot being drawn down each year (the 4% rule is outdated, especially for early retirement). You can also factor in a downsizing at 65-75 to boost your cash/savings.

You need £30k to live on (no mortgage or other debt outgoings, you must remember), you need a pension pot of £900k.

The other advice I've seen is to fund pensions before paying off mortgages - in the long term this works out better, even if you have to pay the mortgage off with your 25% tax free option. YMMV talk to a real pensions advisor.

Let's be honest, this tax bill is a nice problem to have if you have over a million in your pension pot.

I think the GBP issue would be resolved, but all the other special aspects to the deal we had before would be gone.

And by the time we rejoin, we'll be rejoining as a second tier member anyway, we'll be lucky to be in the G20, nevermind the G7.

Not in the short term.

The UK would have to demonstrate that all parties are committed to the EU, but the combination of 30% of the population still thinking the Tories (or further right parties) are worth voting for, and the FPTP electoral system means this cannot be guaranteed.

However realignment is possible in the short term, leading to rejoining the Single Market and Customs Union, which would fix a lot of the issues. Sure, we'd have no say in the rules, but we need our politician quality to increase before that can happen. This might happen within 10 to 15 years.

Add another 10 years therefore to rejoin the EU after that.

It was working fine up until a right wing government came in and stopped funding it properly, and put a lot of privatised layers into it that all have to have their cut.

36% of non-EU immigrants come to study, another 32% come to work - these are typically going to be beneficial to the UK - high skilled immigrants, or soon to be high-skilled workers if they remain.

Non-skilled EU migrants have dropped - that's all the people who did all the farm work in the summer - earning a bit of money to send home or use for their studies.

It used to be better balanced by emigration, but Brexit has slowed that down, as people liked to emigrate to Spain/France/Portugal and so on, and now they can only live there a few months a year, so it's not viable. Now it is only easy for skilled people to leave.

The thing to do is WfH and do the move regardless, and come into the office for a few days a month (block visit, with hotel - sure the train and hotel costs a bit but it usually isn't anywhere near the cost of living in London).

However employers are still wanting people in twice a week or more, which doesn't work with the above pattern.

Huh, how does that work in the US?

In the UK you'll get about £45/week for two kids up until they're 18 (unless you or the other half earn over £50k).

Clearly that doesn't cover what you pay in income tax unless you are on a low household wage, under £25k.

Welfare in the UK is not generous. You can get a mouldy flat and live on scraps. Job seekers allowance is a pittance.

If you want to improve your life from shit to poor, then there is a period where you don't earn a lot extra by working due to clawback of benefits. It particularly affects women with childcare responsibilities who can only work limited hours. Childcare costs in the UK are prohibitive for a low wage earner to even consider.

Actually, I am just responding to a rabid right wing Daily Mail troll post, aren't I?

"amortizing the carbon cost over the decades-long lifespan of the equipment, Bernstein determined that wind power has a carbon footprint 99% less than coal-fired power plants, 98% less than natural gas, and a surprise 75% less than solar. "

From https://www.forbes.com/sites/c...

Solar and wind can also be said to use a lot less land, as often the land is dual-use (agriculture, sheep make good solar farm groundkeepers), or for offshore wind, out at sea. A mix of renewables will give a balance, but yes, a still overcast winter day might need alternative power to kick in right now.

A coal plant is not just the area for the coal plant, it is the area of the coal mines that feed it, the railroads to transport the coal, and so on.

And the emissions costs, in the long term, are also untenable.

People say that solar has an upfront carbon cost - as if all the steel and concrete in a coal plant has no carbon cost! As if a one-off cost outweighs decades of emissions from a coal plant. I don't understand the comments here bringing these arguments up - I can only suggest that these people have swung right into the "slick youtube video replaces actual science" problem.

Up until your DNA is taken because you are a criminal, your DNA should not be on a criminal database, or be used for criminal identification.

That's the end of the matter.

The police could identify her from other evidence, but now that they used the DNA as a basis to get that other evidence, it is all tainted.

And DNA isn't the be-all and end-all.