Nearholmer

There must, surely, be the ability to reduce the clearing distance in the case of a tram? Even if it "hit the stick" at its own full line speed, it ought to be able to "stop on a sixpence", because that's what it has to do everywhere else in its travels. I did have a copy of the diagram for Wisbech, but I can't find it ....... will keep looking. As a PS, IIRC the W&U did have a signal where it left railway formation (it was very firmly a tramway at this point, but running in parallel to the railway) and joined the road, controlled by Wisbech Harbour Junction SB. Th

Pulled, not pushed. The pulling was done by a horse or a mandraulic capstan at the top, so the guy on the back was simply steering.

Considering all the limitations of mini-speakers, whatever it was recorded on, and my laptop, that is pretty blooming good. TBH, I think attempts to get this absolutely right are thwarted by absence of real-world accoustics, and especially the differential attenuation of frequencies over distance. These units produced a wonderful array of low frequencies that travelled miles, bouncing off the hills, when presumably the higher frequencies were damped-out much nearer to source*. I grew up near Crowborough Cross, with the railway about three miles away and 500ft lower than

Yes, more likely that the entire branch would be classed as a tramway, with operation at very restricted speed and, possibly, skirted, condensing, and speed-limited locos, although there were numerous tramways where those stipulations seem not to have applied. The W&U, for instance, entered signaled territory just short of Wisbech, where, I think, was its only signal, necessary because the passenger trams terminated within the railway station on railway tracks. Most other tramways were either completely isolated from railways (often by gauge, 3'6" vs Standard), or o

Does this mean that you've tested AC vs Smooth DC vs Lumpy DC, and arrived at an "order of preference" for good operation?

There was a very radical, pioneering article in MRC c1938, advocating a very scenic, and very simple in track terms, layout based on one of these halts - donkey’s years ahead of its time, because it wouldn’t be put of place in MRJ today. All that sodden scenery clearly has the power to inspire!

my first thought looking at that picture was “It’s grim up Wales.”. The scenery is wonderful on sunny, dry days, but that doesn’t make up for the wind, fog, and beating rain on the other 363 days of the year.

Going back to the OT subject of ‘Leader’ for a moment, I’ve dug out my copy of “Bulleid of the Southern”, which contains a good chapter on the incredibly convoluted path to that loco, and I think the M7 business comes from a memo written from The Traffic Manager to the GM on 3 October 1946, the text of which is given in full. In the memo the TM sets out what a load of old crocks the M7 are (seemingly repeating previous advice on that point), then goes on to repeat a recommendation to build “60 new tank engines, diesel or steam” (yes!) “in addition to the 25 already proposed” then

Brilliant! We now have the answer to “why 0-4-2T?”, and squiggling round corners seems to have been a good part of it ....... which is the advantage of 0-4-2T that I’ve mentioned several times.

Johnster i don’t wish to be unkind, but that summary of the tale of big tank engines on the ex-LBSC section is wide of the mark. They thought they weren’t going to need them, because they had an electrification plan cracking along, which would have slotted in behind the Atlantic and pacific tanks as they retired. Then war, then nationalisation. The biggest tanks, the Baltics, were eliminated from the Brighton lines by electrification of the main lines. They were very stable animals, being part well-tanks, and were only converted to tender engines because whe

This has been gone over in detail before, but the “stopgap” steam loco that the southern found itself desperate for, because electrification was delayed by the war (then nationalisation) was something to replace the medium to large tank engines and 4-4-0 on the Oxted-East Sussex network. These were LBSCR Atlantic and Pacific Tanks, and mainly ex-SECR 4-4-0, all 40 or more years old, and being faced with heavier trains. The loco that filled the gap very well was the Fairburn 2-6-4T, built at Brighton, later replaced by BR Standard 2-6-4T. Next up were loads of M7 and H 0

It is often said, but I’ve never been at all convinced of the truth of it. The SR’s published plan for branch lines east of the Bournemouth main line which couldn’t be economically electrified, and far all west of the BML, was DEMUs, which did eventually get built, ten years later than intended.

No, the business need was for something to shift a couple of auto-coaches worth of passengers about, pretty nippily, as cheaply as possible. What I’m asking is why the chose to do that with an 0-4-2T loco (again), rather than, say, an 0-6-0T, or a 2-4-0T, or pocket-sized internal combustion locos, or a load of internal combustion railcars. I think Steamport has probably nailed it - they knew what worked, so went for a modern, updated, version of that. At that date, diesel would have had high capital cost, and wasn’t yet ‘a known quantity’ to the GWR.

That description of the gen station is far and away the best I’ve read, and it makes clear that it used reciprocating steam engines, whereas the District took the brave step of using turbines at Lots Road, which was built at almost exactly the same time (they left room to fit reciprocating engines, in case the new-dangled turbines weren’t up to the job).

We’ve explored 0-4-2T pretty well, but I’m still not sure I really understand why the GWR decided to build a new set, rather than something else, to replace the life-expired and modified-to-death 517. Were they able to re-use any components from the 517? Was it the good ride-quality of the 0-4-2T configuration? Was line curvature a significant factor? Or, was it the GWR’s peculiar blend of deep conservatism and radical innovativeness at play?