Regularity

I expect Meghan would have something to say about that…

My partner is from Dundee. Even Edinburgh is south.

Whereas nowadays, everyone is ***scared of being sued for causing an accident.

Nothing wrong with a bit of competition in the “Nepotism Derby”! (See wot I did there?0 And yes, apologies for meandering a bit, although the EWJR was only north if you lived south of the Midlands!

From my extensive private collection:

Black Bank, ex GER, 1963:

That’s coming along very nicely, Jonathan. Many people find ballasting gives them a thumping headache, though! Good luck with the continuing treatment.

It was Stirling who put on that enormous boiler (note the lack of a dome). They were much prettier originally:

Possibly due to his employment on the real railway prior to retirement!

Ah, I got them confused, but I am not sure what difference there is (other than the driving wheels on Enigma itself).

I’ve said it before and will say it again, but we could easily get the “best of both worlds” by having a lower chamber elected on a first past the post system, with a second chamber of 200 appointees, from party lists based on proportion of the popular vote cast. There would need to be a bit more clarification on who had competence and supremacy over various things, such as finance bills (probably lower chamber, after review by the upper chamber) and general laws (right of veto held by the upper chamber to stop curtailment of basic rights), but it could be done very quickly and simply.

The HBJR 2-4-0 is essentially an inside framed version of Martley’s “Enigma”, later no 50, which differed from the other two in the class (and most of the 2-4-0 “express passenger” classes on the Chatham at the time) in having 6’ diameter driving wheels. When the EWJR approached Beyer, Peacock for a “passenger engine”, it was suggested that they simply take a Belpaire firebox version of Kirtley’s design for the HBJR, which they did, taking delivery in 1903. It was originally thought that no drawings were prepared for this loco, but it turns out that when BP was shutting down Gorton, people could walk in and more or less help themselves to drawings and no records were kept of what there was, and what was taken. Anyway, my eBay alert drew my attention to a sale of the drawing, in fact two of them, and I was mightily pleased to get my paws on them in time for Christmas just gone! It was typical of the EWJR that they had no real need for such a loco (although by all accounts it steamed freely and ran superbly - very much a “driver’s favourite”) but bought one nevertheless. Also typical that they didn’t even get into the record books for having the last new 2-4-0 on a British railway: North Staffs built 2 in 1904. Also typical that it was, in terms of performance and capabilities, pretty much a design of 1869, the prototype of which was withdrawn only 2 years after this loco appeared. It was only inevitable that it took the number 13… Trevor Nunn has prepared some suitable driving wheels for me, but this has been a year of upheaval with no modelling done, and have just been told we have an above the asking price offer on the house! I cut frames for this loco about 25 years ago. I think I know where they are, but whether or not they are up to scratch is another matter… …and I am currently busy trying very hard not to distract myself with the BCR and the Cambrian Railways! (Kitson, Sharp Stewart and Beyer Peacock all produced such lovely 6-wheel tender locos!)

Same as on the other 350hp shunters, at the front left.

That I truly believe! (I had wondered.) So, do you know the connection between Martley, Kirtley (William) and the EWJR, and a supposed GA which is claimed not to exist, but which I managed to procure a few months ago? ;)

I wasn’t claiming that he did, Stephen. What he did do, for the Joint Committee, was take the brilliant design work of Surtees and elevate it to the pinnacle of Edwardian mechanical beauty. Granted, I didn’t explicitly say that, but I took it as read that people knew that..,

I will admit to Wainwright having a certain flair for making locos look nice, in every other respect, I am completely chauvinistic when it comes to preferring the Chatham over the SER!

Technicality speaking, LCDR coaches converted to push-pull. ;)

They tend to come from the “monied classes”, and restrict their breeding to others like them. And as we know, some of them have a positively pre-Dickensian view of poor people (ie, people they don’t know)!

I remember reading in “The Country Railway” that the coming of the railway all but eradicated the “village idiot”. A relatively unnoticed social and health benefit of our favourite transport system!

Trevor slowly weeded out the less reliable operators. The layout could easily function as almost separate goods and passenger operations, but with a good pair, ther would be occasional pauses in one to support more fluid operation of the other.

Ah, so instead of “Lloyd George knew my father” morphing into “Lloyd George was my father”, in future generations, Welsh people will claim that “Lloyd George was my fathers”… Hence, I suppose, Woden being called the “Allfather”. Something I never understood from the book of Genesis was, if Adam and Eve were the first humans, are we all the product of , which the book of Leviticus forbids? (Mind you, anyone living solely by the laws as explained in Leviticus is going to live a very odd life!)

There were one or two of the regular operating crew on East Lynn that I would almost fight to avoid operating with… But I agree, I am not trying to get William to change, either, and was definitely trying to get something as close to how Buckingham operates as possible. On the other points, it is all a warning on not getting too fixed a mindset about the “best” way to wire and operate a layout: it’s a bit like religion, what is the best fit for one person may not be be do for another (including the options of agnosticism [pushing by hand?] and atheism [on-board battery power with radio control?)

Mixing the two does seem to be worth trying…

Would be nice, but that oft-quoted “fact”, as promulgated on QI, for example, is somewhat questionable. The idea that if you go back x generations, then you have 2^x forebears is correct, but the conclusion that therefore Charlemagne must be one of them isn’t sustainable, for the simple reason that many of your (and my) forebears may be shared in common, without people necessarily realising that someone is their fifth-cousin twice-removed, etc, and without causing any major in-breeding problems.

That is an option which William and I explored, but it’s not his preference. East Lynn has an interesting mixture of the two, and main sections (loco, down main, up main and goods yard) can be selected via two-way centre off switches, but many other feeds (though not all) are selected via points, such that the approach over the swing bridge is connected to the Down or the Up lines in the station by leaving crossover number 6 normal or reversing it (respectively) and similarly, crossover 8 when reversed connects the “main part” of the yard - including right down to the quayside if points and a switch are so set - connect to the up line. The headshunt and private grain siding/docks are powered as the goods yard section, which is reconnected to the rest of the yard by restoring crossover 8. There are also some isolating sections about the layout. With the right operators who understand the layout and each other, this can provide for a great deal of flexibility and fun, and with a little care and thought, we have been able to have locos trapped on the blocks on the down line begin to slowly follow the coaches out, stopping at the platform end, whilst the station pilot transfers the stock from an arriving train to the other platform. Very realistic to watch, and I have spent hours doing this in the past. That said, there are still times when it would be great to have some form of command control in use, especially on the goods side of things. HF or radio control of the passenger and goods pilots might be one solution, but that might interfere with the feedback controllers. Battery-powered radio control of these two could be another solution - they rarely get past a ¼ turn on the controller, so a single LiPo or pair of NiMH cells (the latter trickle-charged from track current) might be another option. Trickle-charging could take place on the pilot spur and headshunt where these two locos respectively reside when not in use: the isolating switches could be replaced with a DPDT switch which connects to “charging supply” in the off position, and adjacent track in the on position - for when other locos are in use. As modellers we maybe get too obsessed with a single solution, but actually combining things with a mixture of block section switches, route (turnouts) and linked section (signals) plus shunting locos independently powered, might give the simplest use short of divorcing the control of trains from the operation of signals and points with a mechanical frame and DCC/on-board power for the locos.