kenw

Derek, I appreciate you saying your original comment on pacers was meant to be tongue-in-check, unfortunately however that's not how it read. Although you did say; My comment in that regard was actually in response to the following which did appear to do so; ...as well as to another post, now thankfully deleted, referring to high blood pressure and management attitude to drivers with 'bad attitude', which I considered totally out of order. I would like to re-assure you, and everyone else who read that, that I do not, and never have had, any issues in either respect, and in the case the former, I've a recent periodic medical which shows it as being good. When however, my abilities or fitness can apparently be called into question, on a public forum where my current employment is known, even though my posts were clearly discussing incidence of past train defects (or as it's discussing pacers, defect trains which consequently required major modification), then I feel that I can have no further involvement in this forum, I'm not leaving over falling out with any individual. So, as far as I'm concerned, this is the end of the matter.

Read my post! As I said, it took the unit further to stop than would have been the double yellow to red distane, although I was atually on greens. So learly a brake failure I'd already worked it ok to Sunderland and most the of return! Even sight of a double yellow and brakes, what there was of them, would have been on! These things were a liability and weren't to be trusted. Well if that was you agreeing I don't want to see you disagree. And as a driver I do take ex'eption to my abilities being questioned by amateurs, that's not 'bad attitude' Was about to explain the DMUs brake system further, but had enough of this, out of here. AndyY, please remove my profile miss-spellings due to keyboard malfution, no "see"s

Yes, HSTs have brakes THAT WORK!

Derek. Sorry, but you had said of my original comments regarding pacers that my 'lack of respect of pacers was out of order' and my reply was emphasizing all my remarks here regards pacers were from a driver's perspective, and in reply to your further points regarding them. Anyway, this is about 1st gen. DMUs, so enough of those abominations on here. I'll just point out though for clarification for those who don't know the area, regarding the Heworth over-run incident I referred to, although of coarse I was actually running on all green signals at the time, the actual stopping distance, with brakes fully applied was significantly greater than the distance would have been between a Double Yellow before the junction and the corresponding Red before the station had it been at danger. It was largely down to drivers learning not to trust them from one stop to the next there wasn't much more serious incidents to report

Hi Derek Sorry but perhaps you'll appreciate then that my opinion of pacers is very much from a driver's perspective, having worked them from their introduction up until the sectorisation split and nothing to do whatever with what 'anorak brigades' may think of them, so my original comments on them were very much in order. I didn't bemoan the replacement of the 101s either, they being clapped out and struggling to get over 45 up even moderate grades, until it became apparent just how bad the replacements were. As far as not having ironed out all the problems, or cost compromises are concerned, this is in no way remotely acceptable when discussing (not) having reliably working brakes. When considering cost they ended up having the brakes substantially modified, and the transmissions replaced on the entire fleet - that hardly worked out cost effective, and in this area they then soon ended up sharing most of the duties they were built for with super-sprinters anyway so it's difficult to see sprinters couldn't have been built instead in the first place. There was one very good side to the pacers though I will admit... with all our 101s having been shipped off elsewhere (too) promptly on being replaced by them... there was plenty of turns on 31s, 45s 46s, and 47s with 3 Mk1s as pacer replacements... though again hardly cost effective for saving branch lines

Thanks, though with respect, I doubt you'd find anyone who'd the mis-fortune of working pacers when new with much respect or them. They may go up Nunthorpe bank fine but although not one of my routes, I expect it would be a different matter coming down! I suspect I'd have been wanting to stop at the top to pin brakes down! (that is if the gearboxes actually lasted a return trip). They weren't even reliable from one stop to the next. Just a couple of notable trips with them, One day going to Sunderland, as usual I try the brake out stopping at Heworth, the first stop to see what it's like... 'hmm seems ok this one'... approaching the next stop, Boldon Colliery, there was a 30 permanent restriction just before the A19 bridge, I started braking at the usual point for one of these... into full service.. and still hit it at 50, just stopping at the station! poor the rest of the way, I have a look round it in the turnback sidings at Sunderland, and promptly fail it, wasn't even going to work it back to Newcastle. Another occasion on way back from Sunderland with one that was 'a bit soft' brake straight to full service at Pelaw Jn, and still completely miss Heworth even though that has a quite long platform and you're aiming to stop at the start of it, and gliding gently to a stop with the brakes 'full' on! Another one that got failed! These things were a liability, never mind respect

Already mentioned on here, the main reason for power/trailer-car sets not getting to Whitby would have been Nunthorpe bank

Just looked that up further in 'The North Eastern Electrics' (Oakwood Press 165). Pictures show the LNE built North Tyneside stock with sliding doors which don't appear to have droplights, and the BR built South Tyneside stock without bars on their droplights

Good point, I hadn't thought of that. If it was the North Shields tunnel, the North Tynesides were worked by the LNER EMUs which had sliding doors, and from what I've heard were often open anyway! The South Tynesides, through Tyne Dock, would have had the BR built EMUs

That rings a bell about something to do with one of the tunnels in the area. I suspect either North Shields or Tyne Dock, although as both the Tynemouth and South Shields lines were closed for Metro conversion by the time I passed I never worked either route. I think probably North Shields, can't find anything specific to either regards window bars in my '72 or '79 Sectional Appendix, but the '79 one has a note for North Shields tunnel, "Rule Book Section S clause 3.3 and Block Regulation 9 apply." Anyone know if this refers to restricted clearances? Could be a clue, don't know if I still have my '72 Rule Book. Also, would be useful if anyone knows when this came into effect, not from new as both pictures of Newcastle sets which prompted the roof vents discussion above, and on the front cover of BR Fleet Survey 8 DMUs', all in green are without bars, the Durham bound blue 104 pictured in the same book does have them

Thanks Tony for a very enjoyable day visiting L.B. again, and your kind comments on my work. Their running qualities are down to the drives, Portescap in the case of the old DJH pair (I never really got away with meshing gears), and in the recent builds High Level gearboxes with the frames assembled using the Hobby Holidays jig, an excellent tool that ensures the chassis square, axles parallel vertically and horizontally, and exactly the same wheelbase as the coupling rods. In the case of the J73, I then put the wheels in, slipped the rods on, and they turned perfectly first time without any tweaking, that's how accurate the jig made it up! Yes the three tanks are a J73, N10, and A8. The A8, a DJH kit built some time ago, has had a recent refresh, with added detail such as cab doors and glazing and a full repaint. These were good kits for their time and went together fairly easily. Not sure how old it is, but it still has in it's box, it's Portescap box with the price tag £15.44 on it, and that's from the then local model shop. The N10's an Alexander Models kit. Unusually with one of Dave's kits, I had a bit trouble with this one. As it uses a lot of common parts with the G5 0-4-4T kit, this involves cutting out a section of cab floor to clear the extra driving wheels, which left me with nowhere to stick the rear of the boiler to. Eventually solved by fitting the spectacle plate and using that instead. I also had a problem with the wheels on this one, which turned out to be a rogue set of slightly undersized Romford axles, not much but just enough to make it too narrow to gauge and excess slack in the axle bushes. The J73, a North Eastern Kits by ArthurK on here, well what can I say, an excellent kit and absolute joy to build! Everything just fitted - first time, so constantly making progress rather than spending time correcting the kit. The cab roof's left loose so I could fit the painted detailed backhead after the loco had been spayed, it's that accurate a fit, as I demonstrated at LB, that I can shake the loco upside down and the roof doesn't fall out! Although also only my second brass kit build I've found these easier than previous whitemetal builds as you can get in and solder them knowing they're not going to melt! The B16/2, DJH like the A8 a good kit of their time. This one's still as built, I've some pictures of it under construction, they're dated 1984. Can't post them on here though, they're slides if anyone remembers them! The J27's another Alexander Models kit, and much more like Dave's usual quality going together well. Tony's picture shows nicely the lack of visible gears under the high pitched boiler. The high Level gearbox, driving on the centre axle which I prefer to keep the drive balanced, is fitted horizontally between the frames with the Mashima motor vertical in the firebox, and the 'motor hole' in the bottom of the boiler's filled in.

Sounds like it was a good day to be route review of Durham Coast route. A 91 'sat down' would be highly unlikely to do this, an internal loco fault wouldn't normally affect OHL. Any major fault and the loco opens it's 'VCB' (the T shaped device visible on roof between the pan. and the power cable into the loco), effectively disconnecting itself from the OHL. More likely either a defect, usually damage to, the pan, causing it to snag the wires, or, defect or damage to the wires causing them to snag the pan. Either will result in the wires being brought down, and usually removal of the pan head from the loco, and leave the train in the 'dead section' and without a usable pan. Always highly disruptive, as well as the time to remove the failed train, where the wires are down they'll be foul of the line, so also preventing diesel trains using the affected line till repairs can be made. Personally, I don't really see the point of two pans. As above, the train will usually be stopped in the dead section anyway, it has to be stopped immediately to prevent spreading damage even further. Also, on the one so fitted (91114), an interlock to prevent both pans being raised means that both pans have to be locked in the down position before either can be raised, so if one of them's gone, that's not going to happen. Incidentally, it was this one involved in the incident few month ago at Werrington Jn, which resulted in the unusual single line working I've mentioned previously, Up Slow crossing to Down Slow at Tallington, under Pilotman's Working over Down Slow to access the Up Stamford at Helpston

Thanks Arthur, That was welcome news on progress on the D20, as I'm looking froward to these coming out following my experience of building one of your J73. The J71's also of interest as these also survived into the period I model. (I 'stretch' the dates deliberately to include a D20, but only a DJH one at present) Are you ready yet to take expression of interest / reservation / deposit on these two? If so, count me in! Ken

A great example of the "efficiencies" of the dis-jointed "system" that now runs the railway this evening; A Leeds bound 91/MkIV failed at Peterborough (yes, another one)... Having lost train supply (ETS)*, and attempts to re-establish supply being unsuccessful, the train's declared a failure at Peterborough... Control call out the Kings X Thunderbird to haul the set back... The Thunderbird crew turn out to the 67 stabled in the East Siding (formally York Rd)... it's one of those nice blue ones.... However, whoever it was operating it previously decided, as well as a nice repaint... they'd change all the door locks!!!! And of course, it never occurred to them to give anyone else keys.... So, Thunderbird required, and everyone LOCKED OUT! * MkIV sets are unable to operate without ETS as it's responsible for battery charge on all vehicles, including the DVT, so when it's batteries drop to a certain level, the DVT just switches off, totally, brake control, door interlock, everything even down to interior and tail / marker lights

Yes, I think things are going to get, erm, 'interesting'. It's said East Coast ( the previous version) didn't bid for the test running work as they reckoned they couldn't cover that! Don't think there's any significant accelerations planned, that would release drivers, before the 800s start. And then of coarse there's the additional services starting next month with the Sunderland and Stirlings, and the daytime Newcastles all extended to / from Edinburgh.