FelixM

This is opentopomap (link). On the left is Tulloch station on the West Highland line, and on the right Dalwhinnie station on the Perth to Inverness line. Today a train journey from Glasgow to Dalwhinnie is 2h15min, from Glasgow to Tulloch however 3h15min, so an hour longer. Looking at the map and seeing these figures, I wondered whether it is a good idea to build a new Tulloch – Dalwhinnie line and in the same vein abandon the Tulloch – Crianlarich section, rerouting Fort William services via Perth. The new line would be ~45km (27mi) long, replacing the 100km Tulloch to Crianlarich section that passes through Rannoch Moor. I cannot make out how long trains would need via the new line but certainly less than that hour. The list of CONS: Generally low patronage to Fort William compared to other lines, making any spending difficult to justify, however it is not clear to me whether there are few passengers because of few slow services, or whether there are few slow services because of few passengers. Losing Corrour, Rannoch, Gorton, Bridge of Orchy and Upper Tyndrum stations. Losing direct services from Fort William to Helensburgh, Dumbarton and Dalmuir. Less patronage on the Crianlarich to Glasgow section, only being fed by the Oban branch. In my view, services to Fort William would best be split at Stirling from Glasgow to Aberdeen fast services, currently using legacy HST rolling stock. This extends the driver-needed length of line to the split/merging point (Stirling instead of Crianlarich). Perhaps signalling upgrade needed from Stirling to Dalwhinnie to accomodate Fort William and Inverness trains running in the same direction in quick succession. The list of PROS is longer: Abandonment of a 100 km line across a moor (slow speed, costly maintenance) and exchanging it for a 50 km line on rock soil. Reduced travel times between Fort William and Glasgow. As trains would be calling at Perth and Stirling, connections to Dundee, Edinburgh are available. Fort William services calling at Blair Atholl and Dunkeld & Birnam could speed up some Perth to Inverness services, removing these stops from Inverness services. Abandonment of the split/merge operation in Crianlarich, speeding Oban services up. Routing of all remaining WHL services to Oban, enhancing service levels to Oban. UNDECIDED It is unclear to me how much the tourist appeal of the West Highland line would suffer from the abandonment of the Crianlarich to Tulloch section. While I appreciate that Rannoch moor is beautiful, there aren't exactly many businesses dependend of those extra passengers that would not ride the line if Fort William services would go via Perth instead of via Crianlarich. I am mystified whether Caledonian Sleeper would be routed to Oban instead, perhaps with a connecting bus link to Fort William, or to Fort William via the new line. A removal of Highlander services between Edinburgh and Glasgow would be a considerable Con, I suspect. Rolling stock profile would change, fewer DMUs would be needed to work the Oban section, but Fort William services would need diesel-electro stock for the eventual electrification of the Highland main line. I am not sure whether the total number of trains to be needed would rise eventuallly. So, a lot of guesswork and playing with numbers here. But what do you think, is it an idea worth to persist with? Appreciating these times rail infrastructure projects have a difficult stand, but on the other hand the reopening of the Borders railway was just under a decade ago.

Dear all, I recently stumbled across this flickr photograph of Tebay station in 1967, showing apparently a ballasting scene back in 1967: https://www.flickr.com/photos/irishswissernie/50999171967/ There is lots of interest in this photograph. Apparently the ballast has been new, at least that is what the bright colour tells me. There is a ballsting gap which has short sections of rails inside the 4 ft. Top right there is a double junction, but one of the turnouts misses its frog; it seems as if it is replaced with a straight section of rail. There are three men visible, one in the 6 ft, one on the platform and one on board the Standard Class 4 4-6-0. Coupled to the engine is a dropside engineers wagon, complete with E marking and DM wagon number prefix, but as it is fully loaded with new ballast it is unlikely to be the source of the new ballast. I wonder if someone can provide more context to this scene. Felix

Hi folks, Sketches of the three DRG wagon types for ferry traffic here: https://epoche2.modellbahnfrokler.de/fg/e2f_gwfb.html The Hornby text reminds me of typical German advertisements of similar models (there are H0 and N gauge models out there) as they do not mention how long they have been in cross channel traffic. This is probably due to most buyers of these models not modelling the UK. I think they did not cross the channel very often as export from the UK was low and import was mainly from southern Europe. They could have been seen in continental traffic however. Nevertheless a 4mm model would be very welcome.

Have had no problems putting "brand new" items to the trunk but no luck at all with pre-owned items. Apparently the trunk is not working with pre-owned, which reduces its usefulness for me.

I put two locomotives to the trunk yesterday. I first clicked add to trunk on the first then on the second then paid for the first then paid for the second, in two different browser tabs. I feared that this may confuse the site so double checked what was in my trunk at which step and it all worked out as expected: After paying for the first it appeared in the trunk and after paying for the second both appeared. @ Hattons team: Thank you very much for this feature, it will save me postage costs.

I got one of these from Bachmann. Hybrid Provincial / Regional Railways liveried Class 150 by – FelixM –, auf Flickr It started life as a RR liveried unit with a second hand trailer in Provincial added later. It even featured in my fast-running clock timetable short demo video: https://www.flickr.com/photos/91875255@N05/28009134271/in/album-72157669856624012/

There will be no Ally Pally this month.

Didn't know it existed before they announced it!

Very intelligent comment. A full list of locos they produce can be looked up here: https://www.km-1.de/html/lokomotiven.html As there are an LMS 8F, LNER A4, GWR 1400 class, BR Standard class 7, LMS Coronation and BR Standard 4MT tank engine I count 6 British outline models. Their C38 and QJ class are Australian, their Decapod, Porter and Falk locos to an American prototype.

That certainly would be nice! It should however be of a design that doesn't require the trains to be lifted from the track for detaching.

I am trying to find information about how widespread lock and block signalling was. The internet has some info about specific types of block instruments or signaboxes but I don't get the full picture from this. Was it in operation on main lines only? Was it in use by specific companies only? Was it mandatory to install on passenger lines? Also a timeline would be interesting too. Lock and block to my knowledge means that signal levers can only be pulled in dependance of the position of the block Instrument, and that the three block positions can only be passed in a specific order and in dependance of a pulled signal lever and that cancelling an offered train needs co-acting of both signalmen on their instruments. Were there any deviations? Felix

From https://www.igg.org.uk/gansg/00-app3-4/ap3-coach.htm: I see the different roof types and think Hattons may do a trick in providing more than one.

In the relevant thread it is said they are 18-pin DCC ready, not 21-pin.

1F60 at about 10:43 in York today: Felix

Coming from the NRM, I was surprised to find Superb on an in service train. I think it was working the 1738 York to Liverpool LS, coming from Scarborough. Not the best pictures I am afraid. By the way, is there a list of Mk5 worked services available? Felix