Talk:British Rail flying saucer
 | A fact from British Rail flying saucer appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 March 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Station Platform ??
editThe article says that the flying saucer design "started as a proposal for a raiseable station platform". I can't find any evidence for this in the cited newspaper stories or patent. The patent uses the word "platform" and the newspaper stories use the phrase "lifting platform", but I think the word "platform" here is a synonym for "vehicle" - as in Hiller Flying Platform - and nothing to do with station platforms. Unless someone digs up evidence for the "raiseable station platform" theory in the next few days, I will amend the article. Gandalf61 12:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- The expression "lifting platform" can be found in a Times article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2083429,00.html The text and drawing in the patent refer to a platform (No. 10). This platform is a frame to which the rest of the vehicle is mounted. No station platform! Please correct the article. --Siffler 16:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Biography of Charles Osmond Frederick
editAccording to the newspaper articles the concept was worked out by Charles Osmond Frederick, who was an engineer with the research centres of British Rail. Does any reader has any idea how to get at least some basic information on his life? --Siffler 16:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
British Rail
editIt would have never been on time anyway.Mahakala 04:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Truth
editIs this a nihilartikel? Wareq
- I don't know why you would say that when a set of references is provided in the article. 79.76.232.227 (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- They could have been fake references - but they aren't. Amazingly, this is true. Bonus points for using the word nihilartikel in an actual conversation though! SteveBaker (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Good laugh
editThis is good for a laugh, but I think the real reason this patent got filed in BR's name was because it was a standard condition in the BR Contract of Employment at the time that the intellectual property rights in anything you invented - even on your own time - belonged to BR. Unfortunately I no longer have my 1979 CoE with BR to check this up, but I vaguely remember being slightly scandalised by that condition, even though it was never likely to affect me! -- Arwel Parry (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Category Error
editThis article is listed in the category "manned spacecraft" which really elevates it to a status it hardly deserves. It was obviously some one's idea of a joke or fantasy and its inclusion in that category just clutters it up. Batvette (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yup - nonsense, I've removed it, along with Category:Interstellar travel. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)