Alan J Kirkman

So very sad to hear this you will be very greatly missed. All our thanks for what you have done for us for years and all the very best for the future. For all those of us of an age it is so sad we hear the news on the day of the MMRS show.

Hi Steve I've posted a warning etc on the Model Tramways Facebook Page. I note John says the Trams case has gone does that include the trams in it? Just so we can lookout etc.d

Sorry to me this is futile done in such a "Fluffy" texture. Compared to FUD or the Black HDA this as rough as the proverbial Badgers whotsit. A reasonably smooth body shell is prerequisite especlally when you can't even contemplate sanding etc. it down as its precoloured. Today producing a transfer for the side etc. from a reasonable dead broadside photo isn't a big job and not beyond many peoples Computer kit with no metallic colours involved equally in the UK we have some people ( like TramAds) able to do it by a printing process anyway to deal with gold etc. numbers or lining. I'd be very interested in a decent Melbourne E body that was in a proper material but not something in material more suited to a scenic item of Dawlish Cliffs . I suppose the clue is in the material name Sandstone! When I compare these photos to the Black HDA Blackpool Glasshouse I was handed on Saturday I just want to weep. So disappointed.

Ye Gods even more expensive!!!!!

Initially Cento wanted a stop at the top pf the Grass Ramp at Snow Hill but the developers of Snow Hill One Office block absolutely vetoed it. Since the line opened to Bull St they have changed their Minds! Too late of course. Snow Hill Two development and the access issue at Great Charles St remain in progress, as doe the whole question of reinstatement of Platform 4 at Snow Hill and so access to the station. Do remember there are interchange stops at Jewellery Quarter and The Hawthorns with the Snow Hill line rail services at least the Local Centro sponsored ones! And some Chiltern ones start at Moor St anyway.

I did hear It would be the first fitted with the Batteries etc. but may have to go back to be fitted, the rest it is said will be done at Wednesbury but if it has escaped on test plans maybe be changing.

The "Continentals" seem to often use a fence in the Six Foot as a deterrent but I have no idea if that would be acceptable to HMRI etc. over here.

I am told that it's as much that now no ICP would be prepared to sign off two trains in one platform just in case he was sued if somebody got it wrong, as much as any technical issues. ROGS has much to answer for and will not allow innovation and new working or even old but not here before anything like as much as convincing an HMRI that it was in fact safe to do it allowed for. Such is life.

I don't think it is as simple as what is done elsewhere under grandfather rights from Old regulations. New schemes current rules. And just in case anyone hasn't noticed the T and W Metrocars are High Floor and were not only a Metro Cammelel built version of a Duwag Statbahn B they were beefed up to meet UK regulations even then. Sheffield are predominately low floor and even the higher bits are still well below even a wagon underframe height! If say a 66 walked into one the buffer beam would go straight through all the passengers! Please live in the real world where whether you agree with them or not we have to live with the regulations as they are. Also remember that now we are under the ROGS regime one cannot convince HMRI that something is acceptable and they will approve and allow it . Now an Independent Competent Person has to personally certify that all is safe and meets all rules etc. and can be sued if they prove to have been wrong. So they have to get insurance against this and have to be overzealous in ensuring that what they sign off will not come back to break them. It's not funny, it's certainly not cheap and it's probably wrong but it is we are where we are.

National Rail options at Snow Hill are already restricted and the Platforms are far too long anyway as they were built with the idea of having mid platform signals and two train in each platform at times but this is no longer regulatorily possible. So if P4 is to be reinstated taking a bit off the north end to do so is no hardship. However it is not proposed in the forseeable future as there is no available planned resignalling work to provide an opportunity to do a reinstatement. This 2 trains not permitted now problem is why there has been nothing track etc wise done to New St other that any like for like changes as to do so would mean total paralysis if the grandfather rights to using A and B platforms was lost. As always with railway work "You couldn't make it up!".

I think the "rules" for Tramtrain operation i.e. mixed operation with some passenger carrying vehicles not having standard buffing load integrity and structural protection require that every thing that might encounter them is FULLY ERTMS etc and cannot overrun signal etc. and so endanger the lighter vehicle.

Aren't the Tramtrains being fully equipped with ERTMS? So it is essential that any route they run on is also full ERTMS hence resignaling to provide this.

One of the advantages of Modelling trams in 4mm scale on 16.5mm gauge, you are as wrong with either a Standard Gauge Car or a 3ft 6. Bradford and Blackburn/Darwen rule OK the 4ft gauge systems!

I think you'l find the section alongside Snow Hill Station is due to be turned into "grass track" hence why it is laid on solid concrete. That is what has been said from the start.

I don't think they have any legal powers yet to lay any part of the extension to Curzon St etc.. So it would be ILLEGAL to lay in the junction point work now.

These are looking superb. It's moving N scale trams to a higher level! That Coronation could nearly make me change scale if I wasn't internally calibrated to 4mm and getting to retirement age is no time to be looking at smaller stuff. But it's looking very good and almost like passing the Church at Fleetwood. That reminds me I haven't done a Photo call with the 4mm 3D 304 on the Fleetwood layout! The N scale G and I with the RTR locos now available to run alongside sounds a wonderful concept.

We should also all remember there are restrictions on how much of a road can be opened up at any one time, hence the apparent disjointed work sites on all new Tramway work on street. It is not like on a railway on private right of way. That why the off street sections make much more apparent sense whether in Nottingham or Manchester, even in Blackpool while the reconstruction on the reserved section was in a continuous work site when the street track in Fleetwood was done it had to be in sections which were finished before tackling the adjacent short length and there was a few separated sites at any one time.

According to what Colin Robey of Centro told a Joint LRTA/TLRS/ERS meeting last year the T69s are being stored with a view to use as trams on the line to Merry Hill etc whilst they wait for the Strategic Freight Review to report , it could be 15 years, when they will be able to know finally if that route needs trams or tramtrains, so the T69s are seen as an interim possibility.

Precisely Edwin! Andy quite likes the CAF cars but I'd prefer the Bombardier Flexity 2 both on Specification and having axles and a limited bogie swivel (2.5 Degres either side of the centre line) and after riding Edinburgh. He was also the source of the C**P quote about the T69s.

I completely echo that story about the Cross City I heard it from source inside the DfT. There were many rumours of The LMR GM and the Divisonal Manager being seen with a length of hose pipe looking for an MP!!!!! At a Joint TLRS/LRTA/TMS/ERS meeting last year we were told by a very senior Centro officer ( and It was no doubt true because amongst the attendees was Andy Steel, one time manager of MM and now the ICP for approving the CAF Urbos3s) that T69s can climb out of Stephenson St the problem is stopping on the way down if the Magnetic brake goes demic. Urbos 3s will be allright on their other brakes as well. So T69s will be limited to Upper Bull St crossover..

A pleasure exhibiting virtually opposite you Tom!

I'm told the Method used by Midland Metro is based on Melbourne practice. I certainly prefer the approach to some of the methods being used in section of Nottingham extensions now under construction and a great advance on the attempt to lay tram rail in grooves in a concrete slab and glue it down with rubber grout tried on some of our first new generation tramways and subsequently found sadly lacking in accuracy of gauge keeping etc. I was pleased to notice in Nottingham that they had recognised that a hole in the bottom of the rail groove at track drains is a great help to draining the groove.

Trolley buses stopped by Museum Management as the consultants they called in to inspect the Electrics refused to do so as they could see some asbestos! Consultants ( Different ) called in to examine the Tram Track have condemned it.. At least that is what I am assured is the position by a senior Committee member of the Transport Group. Certainly it doesn't look good.