Re: Atomic Train

[matthew@mail.usyd.edu.au (Matthew Geier)]

In article <7p9b8h$83o$1@centipede.wantree.com.au>,
Henry's Cat <geracen@wantree.com.au> wrote:
>
>Henry's Cat <geracen@wantree.com.au> wrote in message
>7p9atp$7no$1@centipede.wantree.com.au">news:7p9atp$7no$1@centipede.wantree.com.au...
>>
>> At last, some competition for Tomorrow Never Dies with its nuclear-powered
>> TGV-Anglaise.
>>
>Er, maybe it was Goldeneye, I can't recall. (I'm from Perth, I'm allowed to
>say that)

 But the French generate a significant portion on their electricty from
nuclear power stations, hence you could say the TGVs are nuclear powered.
Along with every other electric train in that country and most of their
industry. :-)

 Hollywood never let a technical quibble get in the way of a 'good' plot. I
still clearly remember 'Hanger 18' (not a train movie) showing a NASA space
shuttle breaking orbit with its main engines. I wanted to know where the
fuel to do that came fron since the fuel tank was long gone... :-) The same
movie watched by a truck driver I knew at the time complained about the
truck chase scene. (The supposed full fuel tanker was empty judging by the
the trailer was bouncing I was told. Next scene we see the hero open the valves
pour fuel all over the road and blow up some 'bad guys'.)

 Hollywood dont stand a chance of getting train proceedure/dynamics right when
they dont make an effort to get any thing else right. Its a train. Trains are
big, heavy, cant be steered and flatten cars at level crossing as a result.
Any thing else just isnt so :-)

 The trailer for Atomic train was enough to put me off. At confirmed runaway
you put the thing into the dirt. End of story :-)