Jump to content

Compound2632

Members
  • Content Count

    4,564
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4,414 Excellent

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Location
    Reading, UK

Recent Profile Visitors

720 profile views
  1. Dearie dearie me that gaping Midland-shaped hole in your library again. Write out one hundred times (once for every engine of the Neilson Goods class): 8'0" + 8'6" And yes, it is long - the Midland built Big Engines in Matthew Kirtley and Samuel Johnson's day.
  2. I can't quite reconcile these. It seems to me that the intention of the 1842 act is to promote the safety of the public by preventing them from straying onto the railway - placing a duty of care on the railway company. A fence does this more effectively than a bye-law, even accompanied by a 40s fine.
  3. V & VI Vict. Cap. LV [aka Regulation of Railways Act 1842]: X [Railway Companies to erect and maintain fences]. And whereas it is expedient that further Provision be made for the Safety of the Public in respect of the Fences of Railways ; be it enacted, That all Railway Companies shall be under the same Liability of Obligation to erect, and to maintain and repair, good and sufficient Fences throughout the whole of their respective Lines, as .they would have been if every Part of such Fences had been originally ordered to be made under an Order of Justices by virtue of the Provisions to that Effect in the Acts of Parliament relating to such Railways respectively. XIII [Alteration of dangerous level crossings]. And whereas in many Cases Railways have been made to cross Turnpike Roads, Highways, and private Roads and Tramways on the Level, and the Companies to whom such Railways belong would in some Cases be willing, at their own Expence, to carry such Roads and Tramways over or under such Railways by means of a Bridge or Archway for the greater Safety of the Public, but have no Authority so to do: And whereas it would promote the public Safety if Railway Companies were enabled, under the Sanction and Authority of the Lords of the said Committee, to substitute Bridges or Archways for such level Crossings as aforesaid ; be it -therefore enacted, That in all Cases where any Railway Company shall be willing, at their own Expence, to carry any Turnpike Road, Highway, or private Road or Tramway over or under their Railway by means of a Bridge or Arch in lieu of crossing the same on the Level, it shall be lawful for the Lords of the said Committee, on the Application of the said Company, and after hearing the several Parties interested, if it shall appear to the Lords of the said Committee that such level Crossing endangers the public Safety, and that the Proposal of the Company does not involve any Violation of existing Rights or Interests without adequate Compensation, to give the said Company full Power and Authority for removing the Danger at their own Expence, either by building a Bridge, or by such other Arrangement as the Nature of the Case shall require, subject to such Conditions as the Lords of the said Committee shall direct. The safety of members of the public has always been the priority.
  4. They do that sort of thing - it the Thomist self-importance. Here's another - the photographer had carefully set up to record the rather interesting 29 ft centre-luggage composite of 1875 converted to a mess coach...
  5. Now that Sharpie 2-4-2T has very much the look of one of Parker's 0-6-2Ts which is surprising as the Gorton drawing office had a much closer association with their neighbours Beyer, Peacock than the other Manchester firm.
  6. Post corrected - I didn't read Edwardian's post correctly in addition to being Brighton-ignorant. If the E1 was 12% larger all round than a Terrier, it must have been intended for one of the Irish lines. Not that that would be a problem for you.
  7. The Brighton E4 is a bit too far off? How about adapting the body of a L&Y tank to the E4 chassis... The L&Y chassis might then give you the starting point for a 2-4-0 or 4-4-0. The E4 body needn't go to waste - there's bound to be someone on the look out for one to convert to P4.
  8. Anyway quite a few of the regular contributors are more-or-less commercial modellers, likewise the Portfolio photos often feature models built to commission. But are we really complaining? What we go to the magazine for is modelling of the highest quality.
  9. Which is rather intriguing, really, as they're based on the carriages in the television series... Britt Allcroft's interest in the Railway Series is said to originate with a documentary she made on the Bluebell Railway in the late 70s; even now the Bluebell's Stroudley 4-wheelers are under or awaiting restoration. Someone in the original production team must have had the knowledge to latch onto Thomas' Brighton origins? Pictures* of Thomas in his pre-preservation** branch line days clearly show Annie and Clarabel to have been elliptical-roofed bogie non-corridor carriages. *Dalby &c **i.e. pre-Britt Allcroft!
  10. True, I'm feeling rather sorry for Ian - the poor fellow has had his layout rebuilt by the diktat of the politbureau - his next project should be based on the railways of the USSR.
  11. You did well there as from WF's own posts I gather the Saturday was his 1928 day; you got the 1908 day. He seems to have skipped his 1918 day with the regrettable outcome that his D299 was not on view.
  12. That must be the GP with his brown bowler and dog cart - probably a graduate of TCD. He seems to have trodden in a patch of something grey and squishy...
×
×
  • Create New...